The United Kingdom has made it “absolutely clear” that it will be purchasing more than 48 F-35 jets, according to a senior defence minister.

At a recent session of the Defence Committee. focussing on the Royal Navy, it was stated by Jeremy Quin, Minister for Defence Procurement, that:

“As you know, we are going to acquire 48. We have made it absolutely clear that we will be acquiring more. We have committed to have 48 in service by 2025, and we will be acquiring more. We have set that out in the IR. We will set out the exact numbers in 2025.

The 138 number is still there. That is a defined number and we are looking at keeping these aircraft carriers in operation for a very long period of time. I am not dismissing that number either. We know that we have 48 to which we are committed, and we know that we will buy more beyond that.”

How many are expected?

The former First Sea Lord said during a webcast earlier this year that the UK intends to purchase ‘around 60’ F-35B jets and then ‘maybe more up to around 80’ for four deployable squadrons.

A defence insider informed the UK Defence Journal of a live webcast given today by the First Sea Lord.

“The First Sea Lord has just said 60 F-35, then maybe more up to around 80 for 4 deployable squadrons.”

UK looking at ’60 and then maybe up to 80′ F-35B jets

According to the Defence Command Paper titled ‘Defence in a Competitive Age’, the UK intends to increase the fleet size beyond the 48 F-35 aircraft it has already ordered.

“The Royal Air Force will continue to grow its Combat Air capacity over the next few years as we fully establish all seven operational Typhoon Squadrons and grow the Lightning II
Force, increasing the fleet size beyond the 48 aircraft that we have already ordered. Together they will provide a formidable capability, which will be continually upgraded to meet the threat, exploit multi domain integration and expand utility.

The Royal Air Force will spiral develop Typhoon capability, integrate new weapons such as the UK developed ‘SPEAR Cap 3’ precision air launched weapon and invest in the Radar 2 programme to give it a powerful electronically scanned array radar. We will integrate more UK weapons onto Lightning II and invest to ensure that its software and capability are updated alongside the rest of the global F 35 fleet.”

The total of 80 is welcome news given the speculation the buy could be capped at 48.

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

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

233 COMMENTS

    • If ordering different to the B’s have them as C’s they are more expensive but more capable than the A’s and it leaves the option open for cat conversion at a future date rather than closing it off completely. However until you have at least enough to fill both carriers the B’s make more sense.

      • Completely agree. C is long ranged and carries a heavier payload. If we are going to get a mixed fleet Id stay away from the A variant.

        • RAF may want the A variant to launch from land-based airfields. No point buying C variants for the carrier air wings – no money and no political will to fit cats and traps.

          • If we stop at 60 B’s thats enough to have 2 CSG’s active, if we got more F-35’s i would say get C’s they have longer range, heavier weapon load and perhaps we could get an RN squadron to do deployment on a US CVN !!! reverse of USMC deploying with CSG? just a thought. As the QE’s will be about for 50years who knows we may refit to CATOBAR (not in my lifetime but they will be about longer), the RN will have an ongoing capability of having aircrew and deck crew with knowledge of operations.

          • Do remember that the F-35Bs are being procred to fill TWO roles, as the Joint Harrier Force did previously:

            1) RAF close support for the Army

            2) Naval FSR (fighter strike fighter , reconnaissance) for the Harrier carrier.

            Despite the carrier lobby’s enthusiasm, they are not all earmarked for the carrier and in any wider conflict, at least half of them would be off supporting the ground forces from austere land bases.

            The Navy seems to have tried to grab the lot for itself, but that is not the deployment plan. As things stand, there will be 12 frontline a/c for close air support and 12 for the carrier. Pitifully small indeed, but that is the UK defence budget for you.

          • The F35 is being procured to replace two aircraft types, the Harriers and Tornadoes. They will be fulfilling more then two roles, but cannot fulfill all the Tornado roles – lack range for deep strike.

            Nobody has grabbed anything, these aircraft whilst duel rolled are initially being procured for CS, that’s what we built the carriers for! They will be used as and where they are needed, so, if we need 2 sqns on a carrier, that’s where they will go, and vice versa.

            You are correct with the small numbers we have at present, but that is increasing, perhaps too slowly, but that’s life. Older models will need upgrading when Blk4 comes along, depending on what mod state they are, will determine how much each costs to upgrade. Some may never be upgraded, that is the financial reality we are facing.

          • exactly what I keep telling people that think we are going to buy 140 in one go. Its over the life of the program and any we buy now will be out dated when block 4 comes out and our new capabilities come on line. Then they will end up like tranche1 typhoon or if lucky training platforms

          • Some of us with extensive grey hair remember that when the decision on F35 was made, and the number of 138 was first quoted as the uk buy volume, that number was on the basis of a phased replacement for the following aircraft types and volumes still operational or in the inventory as spares at the time. (these being the volumes retained from earlier volumes and versions and had, or were still being, upgraded to latest spec at the time.

            143 x Harrier II (GR 7 / 9)
            48 x Jaguar GR3A
            142 x Tornado GR4
            47 x SHAR FA2

            Deep strike Tornado role was to have been combination of F35 & Storm Shadow…but we know how that ended,

            changed days

          • Evening Pete, I’ve got plenty of the grey stuff myself!

            Wasn’t aware that the Jag GR3A was being replaced by the F35. It was always my understanding that initially both RN/RAF Harriers were to be replaced , and then with the cancellation of FOAS, the Tornadoes were too.

            Yes, how things have definitely changed, not only numbers but capabilities too. As you say SS and BS were originally slated for initial requirements, but then got cancelled. What I wasn’t aware of was that the MOD had originally allocated £6billion for the purchase of 150 aircraft (£40 mill a pop), which then evolved into this 138 over the lifetime figure – now 60-80!

            Seems a little light in the numbers department when you consider it is 400 airframes being replaced! Still, that’s costs for you.

            With ref to Deep strike, am assuming that role is either undertaken by Typhoon flt or gapped,?

          • If the Navy have grabbed the lot for itself, how is it that there are no FAA F-35Bs on the CSG 21 deployment?

          • Pass! Isn’t it a Joint Force, are there actually any FAA-badged aircraft as yet? As I understand it, the 8 UK aircraft are drawn from the only operational squadron, 617, which is an RAF squadron, albeit including some navy fliers.

            No doubt the FAA badge will appear when 809 squadron stands up and reaches establishment in a few years time.

          • there are no FAA badged aircraft its a joint force the same as the harrier fleet, joint force, joint squadrons with everyone serving together

          • ‘A’ Models use US Air Force Flying Boom as opposed to the Probe and Drogue method of Air to Air Refuelling the UK along with the US Navy & Marine Corps.
            If the RAF selects the F35A then they will be incompatible with all UK Tankers, thus reducing their effective range.

      • Have you any idea how much it would cost to convert the carriers to cats and traps for F-35? MoD was to FFNW but could not even afford that.
        It won’t happen. We will have a smalller system to launch and recover drones, though.

    • 24 x F-35As would be a good start to re-acquiring some longer-range attack and SEAD capability. We need that to penetrate s400 air defences, which in any conflict would currently constitute a no-fly zone in Eastern Europe and the Baltic Republics.

      I would be reluctant to see the Tyhhoon F2s withdrawn though, we only have the equivalent of 5 air defence/tac air squadrons, which is wafer-thin. Others are successfuly upgrading their F2s without too much fuss. With our severely-depleted number of fast jet combat aircraft – now well behind France, Italy, Germany and even Spain in numbers – we should not be scrapping useful fighters with 15-20 years life left in them.

      • Cripes, not wishing to be impolite as you may have more expertise on this matter, however, is that correct that France, Italy, Germany and Spain have more combat aircraft than the UK? Upon cursory glance at WickipedIa numbers for each respective country, it would seem the UK has more.
        Happy to be corrected.
        Many thanks,
        George

        • I think France has more but then that’s also a mix of Hi/Lo, with Rafales being the hi and Mirages being the Lo.

          RAF doesn’t have a Hi/Lo mix, it has a Hi/Higher mix, which is why we have fewer.

          To be honest I think we should have kept the Tornado GR4s in service until 2025 as originally planned, to be replaced by the F35s as they came into service.

        • I did reply to you George but can’t see it anywhere.

          Current fast jet combat aircraft numbers are:

          France – 251
          Germany – 237
          Italy – 224
          Spain – 165
          UK – 155*

          UK figure includes the 24 tranche 1 Typhoon F2s which are now to be retired prematurely.

      • Is that really true regarding S400? Why is this system perceived to be so invincible to all but Gen 5 stealth aircraft? Some commentators on this forum that to me, clearly know what they are talking about, indicated that Typhoon’s Pretorian DASS would still allow it to operate effectively in S400 contested airspace. Add to that the planned AESA radar with jamming capability, only further increases Typhoon’s survivability.

        I can’t speak for Rafale, F-15/16, etc.,. but Typhoon seems well capable of holding it’s own against S400.

        • Realistically no one really knows, and won’t know until a conflict occurs involving the various systems. We don’t know if the s400 works and if it does, how effective it is. We also don’t know how stealthy the f35 really is etc.

          Unfortunately sooner or later a proxy war involving the various hardware will happen, and then we can judge.

          Although I really wish the west and espescially the UK, would stop selling arms to countries that are far from stable or democratic and especially not to Saudi etc.

          • Good first para Steve. What we do know is that the S-400 is a fairly old system now and the new shorter range/more missiles S-350 version is now entering volume service with the ABM optimised S-500 soon. This week Shogui has started talking about the S-550 which might be a rebranded S-400M with upgraded radars. What is certain is that the Russians are moving the capabilities of their already good IADS systems ever onwards and for whatever reason, cost, capability, availability etc almost everyone who has a free hand buys them.

          • I just don’t think there are any other options for medium/long range air defence out there. The patriot is massively expensive and comes with lots of strings attached (just ask turkey or Japan when they dared look at non US kit). Outside that there are a few systems but none that really create an integrated air defense. I assume it has some capability, just how much is anyone’s guess

          • Agreed, but its real capability is certainly when it is closely coupled into the whole range of Russian SAMs which they have not exported. Even at the 3 Russian S-300/400 sites in Syria they have only exposed to the curious two of their SAM systems operating in an integrated manner. As you say, we really have no idea what the full system is capable of but even the basics back in Serbia gave NATO a run for its money.

          • I suspect that only those with a need to know know the answer to that and none of them is talking. Anything out there will be pure speculation.

          • Assume the Turks have a reasonable understanding of s400 capabilities….at least the version they have been sold.

          • True, although like you said the version that has been exported, with Russia having a history of downgrading the export products (I would I was them, why give potential future enemies the kit that is capable of defeating you). Plus with the rocky relationship between Turkey and the rest of NATO currently, I suspect they might not be too keen to share too much details

          • I’d say that the following would provide a very good multi-layered defensive system, especially for airbases so aircraft aren’t destroyed on the ground:

            • The MANTIS system (especially to deal with drone swarms as well as low-flying cruise missiles, helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft)
            • Sky Sabre (short to medium range defence based on CAMM)
            • SAMP/T (medium to long range defence based on Aster 30)
            • THAAD and/or Arrow (very long range & high altitude defence) (AIUI THAAD is hit to kill, Arrow isn’t)
            • 1+ megawatt chemical lasers (could theoretically deal with any missiles, weather permitting; it would make sense imo to look into fitting airships operating above rain clouds with such lasers)
            • Railguns (especially if able to fire airburst ammo)
            • High-power electric lasers (to blind and/or burn out the sensors on missiles; in time they may become powerful enough to shoot down missiles, again weather permitting)
            • High-power microwave weapons (to burn out the electronics in missiles)
            • EW suites (to blind radar-guided missiles or to give them multiple false targets)
            • Decoys (to provide false targets)

            And as far as airbases are concerned, it would also make sense to use dispersal, multispectral camouflage, deception and redundancy to make aircraft on the ground far more survivable.

        • The S400 is a pretty good system, but it has its flaws. One of which is that it is not a true fire and forget system. The missiles predominantly uses semi-active radar homing and are radio command guided towards their targets. This is pretty old technology by today’s standard. They are only now starting to put active radar guided missiles into general service.

          There are various electronic warfare techniques that can be used against command guided semi-active guided missiles. The Typhoon’s Praetorian defensive aids system (DAS) has been designed to use these techniques to protect it from S400 and similar SAM systems, plus other radars. EuroDASS led by Leonardo are upgrading the Praetorian so that it can protect the aircraft against newer AESA based radars using digital radio frequency memory techniques.

          One of the most recent upgrades to the Typhoon’s DAS is the introduction of Leonardo’s Britecloud expendable RF jammer. This takes the Typhoon’s protection against radar and radar guided missiles to the next level. The jammer is significantly better in protecting the aircraft compared to the chaff most aircraft use. The jammer uses a technique called digital radio frequency memory (DRFM). This combines a spectrum analyser, with memory and a wideband transmitter to replicate exactly a transmitted radar waveform. This cloned waveform is sent back to the source radar. However, the waveform can be manipulated to alter its phase and timing, which will generate false targets, or completely hide the targeted aircraft. What’s more, if the radar is using moving target indication (MTI), usually through doppler timing, a radar can see through chaff, as the cloud slows down too much compared to the targeted aircraft. The Britecloud when released has fins that pop out after firing. These steer it away from the aircraft, but more critically don’t slow it down rapidly. Therefore for the first 5 seconds or so, the Britecloud looks like it is travelling at the same speed as the aircraft, thus allowing it to fool MTI tracking.

          Rafale has the equivalent Spectra DAS. It does the same, but allegedly it has an issue when carrying out jamming, in that the radar warning receiver (RWR) becomes useless. The other advantage that Typhoon has, is that it can deploy an expendable towed RF decoy. This is the last chance to protect the aircraft, if everything else fails.

          The one key area that the updated Praetorian is going to address is the IR protection. At the moment the aircraft deploys multi-spectrum IR/UV flares. These are becoming less and less effective, especially against imaging infrared (IIR) sensors, which are basically a thermal imager. The resolution is getting better, so much so that their image quality is getting close to HD picture quality. These sensors don’t focus solely on hot spots like the exhaust or leading edges, but now look at the whole aircraft’s contrast against the background sky. Therefore, a missile such as ASRAAM will most likely ignore a flare, especially as it also uses a moving target indication program like the radar does. Much like chaff, once a flare is fired its speed drops rapidly, so it can easily be discriminated between it and the aircraft. To make matters worse some missiles are also incorporating UV sensors, hence the combined multi-spectrum flares. But flares are no longer guaranteed to protect the aircraft, so something else is needed.

          The best way of dealing with IR guided missile presently, is by using a directable infrared countermeasures (DIRCM). This was originally a very bright incoherent light shone by using a turret. The intention was to blind the missile’s sensor. The problem was the bright white light had very limited range. With the advent of high power LED lasers, the white light source has been replaced with the laser. This meant that laser could blind the missile’s sensor much further away. DIRCM has been predominantly used on helicopters and large transport aircraft. This is where the rumours for Praetorians upgrade is heading. EuroDASS have been pretty cagey on what the upgrade entails. But the Su57 has a upper and lower DIRCM, so there is a precedence as there is already a system being used.

          Getting back to S400. With RF jammers there is a term called burn through. This is where the radar’s power output overwhelms the jammer’s, so it can see through the jamming. Up until that point the aircraft will be safe. This is in some respects similar to a stealth aircraft. Radar stealth works by either deflecting the radar beam at an angle away from the receiver. Or it uses a form of material and cavities to absorb the radar beam/pulse. However, there is also a point where these materials will become overwhelmed and the radar beam/pulse will reflect back to the receiver. To make matters worse, S400 is the first surface to air missile(SAM) system that is networked with a series of other 3rd party radars and SAM systems. So the attacking aircraft has to contend with lots of radars placed in different locations.

          What will be classified is how close a Typhoon using its DAS can get before the S400 detects it. This is similar to an F35, at some point it will be detected by the S400 system. You can mathematically model this, but you need hard data on not only the aircraft and jammer, but crucially the S400’s radars as well, otherwise its a best guess. This was the primary reason why Turkey was kicked out of the F35 program when it went ahead and bought the S400. A lot of the data gathering is done by NATO ships, but also electronic listening and intelligence (ELINT) aircraft such as the Rivet Joint.

      • We need to factor drones into this equation.

        Mosquito will fly in 2023, potentially deployable by end of decade. Vixen will probably be a mix of ‘Sea Mosquito’ (please call it Sea Hornet) and something like the MQ-25 Stingray, again beginning to come online towards end of decade – which suggests that the Cats and Traps will need to be fitted in the 2025-35 timeframe.

        If RAF has 20 odd F-35As or Bs for defeating A2AD and 90 Typhoon as follow-up ‘bomb trucks’ to deliver most of the ordnance, these could be mulitplied in capability by adding 200 Mosquito UAS, if they can come in at around £15-20 million a pop that is realistic.

        RAF is already standing

        Similary if 48 F-35Bs are operated from the carriers, they can be accompanied by another 48 Vixen drones.

        Add 6-9 Sea Guardian to the P8 fleet, and that hugely increases our ASW capability too.

        • Cat/trap for relatively light weight drones should in theory be massively cheaper and easier to fit than those required to launch a fully armed f35a. But I’m no engineer.

          • Full CTOL adds the ability to cross deck very substantial US Navy assets. The US Navy would love to park dozens of super hornets, e-2’s and C’s on the QE. They have 11 CAG’s and the CVN’s spend a ton of time in maintenance. You would see real, 70+ aircraft deployments on the boats.

            The real issue was trusting EMALS to General Atomics, which was a relatively small and obscure company up until a decade ago. They have alot less engineering resources and experience than a large contractor like LM, Boeing, RR or BAE. It’s probably a rare instance where going with the new guy was a bad idea.

          • Yes it’s quite bizarre that the DOD went with GA for EMALS and the advanced arrestor but has frozen them out of new UAS in favour of the big 3. Should have been the other way around.

        • Hi James
          How about putting Cats&Traps on the future replenishment ships that sail with the carrier strike group and launch and recover drones
          Ian

      • Only if those 24 F35As were in addition to all planned Bs. We can’t afford an A/B split.

        An A/B split would require two OCUs, two pools of spare aircraft and two sets of spare parts. Additional mechanics and ground crew would be required to work on the two different aircraft.

        If the current planned number (even if it stayed as 138 over the life of the program) were an A/B split this would result in two squadrons of A and two of B. This would mean that the entire carrier-capable F35 force would be all of 24 planes and would prevent any meaningful surge in future if needed. Planes would to be pulled from the OCU or rush to put planes in maintenance back together to rush into service. It would be an absolute struggle.

        Keeping all 4 planned squadrons as B increases the amount of carrier-capable aircraft. It allows for battle losses to be quickly replaced and to surge if needed. If in dire straits in a SHTF scenario we could conceivably use both carriers, each with 24 F35s. Or even more if we then scraped together spares and OCU planes. We can’t do that with an A/B split.

        The only way an A/B split would work is to increase the number of planned aircraft and squadrons. Bare minimum would be 180 planes in my opinion (90x A and 90x B) This would allow for the following each for A and B:

        • 4 x frontline squadrons (4×12=48 planes)
        • 1 x OCU squadrons (12 planes)
        • 1 x OEU (4 planes)
        • 26 x spares

        So this times two, one lot for A and one lot for B. Unfortunately this would increase the cost massively and couldn’t be done without an increase to 3% of GDP (approx. £60 billion per year, so an increase of £16 billion per year from current budget)

        I can’t see that happening unless Russia, China and Iran all entered an unholy alliance, or unless someone finds the world’s largest gold deposit somewhere in the UK, worth a few trillion to pay off all UK government debt.

        • What a lot is being made about he supposed problem having a split A-B fleet.

          Japan is doing it with the As for its air force and the Bs for its Harrier carriers.

          Ditto South Korea.

          Ditto Italy

          We have 2 Typhoon types but one OCU training pilots to fly both. We have 2 Wildcat types but again train Army and FAA in one OCU. Etc. They simply stream the pilots into two streams in Phase 2.

          Two types of F-35 does NOT increase the number of aircraft needed, you order 19 per squadron which covers reserves plus aircraft for OEU and OCU and Wingco, your As and Bs just confirm to that split, no extras needed.

          It is revealing to note that no other country is buying the B for its air force, they are all ordering As. The only export orders for Bs are for Harrier carriers.

          We seem to be the odd man out, thanks to our carrier lobby.

          • There is a lot being made about a A/B split for good reason. It has its origins in the reason why we built 2 large carriers instead of 3 smaller ones – basically aircraft sortie rates. It is more effective to have the larger carriers then the smaller ones.

            Those 3 countries buying B models are for baby carriers, with space for between 12-18 F35s. More for area denial ops rather then strike missions. Ours can easily hold 48 plus additional help assets, giving a airwing of some 60-70 aircraft as required.

            Whether you agree with the decision or not, priorities dictate that the F35s are going to CS first, therefore it is extremely unlikely, unless things change, that we will have a split buy. @Sreve R post above is correct.

      • The numbers of jet fighters for these countries might be larger in the relevant Jane’s book, but how many of them are combat-ready within 30 minutes? For Germany, the number is in single figures, and it’s a scandal. Legacy of Ursula von der Leyen.

        • All 5 air forces are now fully professional, no conscripts. All follow NATO training and operating standards, including readiness.

          Germany is making big strides in replacing older aircraft with new Typhoons and Super F-18s and in readiness. They are expanding and improving while we are reducing and losing capability.

          We must be careful about British exceptionalism, the belief that, though we have far fewer aircraft, a questionable choice of F-35B over A, and a complete absence of longer range strike/attack aircraft, we are somehow innately superior to these Johnny foreigners! It is the kind of jingoistic bravado that comes back to bite you on the posterior in a serious shooting war.

          We are 5th of 5 – and behind Turkey and Greece too in numbers, if not quality – because we have invested a large slice of our defence budget in national status symbols like the SSBNs and £7bn Harriet carriers, rather than the key kit needed.

    • Problem is F35 is a great strike / situational platform but no air superiority fighter. OK, one can argue that Typhoon’s not the best in that scenario, but it’s pretty damn good & an excellent all rounder with significant growth and manoeuvrability potential. They need each other as things stand.

      • I believe this is a fallacy bred by a lot of nonsense on the interweb. Its a great air superioity platform – it can see the enemy long before they can see us, and its very hard to see. It has amazing electronic attack capabilites as well as the latest AMRAAM and Meteor (or will have soon) to shoot down enemy aircraft before they even know its there.

        • Meteor Spear Cap 3

          Not until the late 20 ’20s, They both require Block 4 now pushed back even further, one of the reasons why we holding back on future purchases.

          Worth reading in full and from the horse’s mouth.

          “While DOD added another year to the schedule, GAO found the remaining development time frame is not achievable.

          The program routinely underestimated the amount of work needed to develop Block 4 capabilities, which has resulted in delays, and has not reflected historical performance into its remaining work schedule.

          Unless the F-35 program accounts for historical performance in the schedule estimates, the Block 4 schedule will continue to exceed estimated time frames and stakeholders will lack reliable information on when capabilities will be delivered.”

          We found that F-35 simulator delays continue to prevent DOD from completing initial operational testing and making a decision to move to full-rate production.

          The program office postponed a full-rate production decision from the previous plan of December 2019 to March 2021, which is now further delayed to a future unknown date, and continues to take steps to address ongoing risks such as: • high overall open deficiencies, • production delays and quality issues, • efforts to address Turkey’s removal from the supply chain and find new suppliers, and • aircraft not meeting reliability and maintainability goals.”

          https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-21-226.pdf 

          • Why is the USA spending this amount of money if the F35 is a great air superiority fighter? Are they referring to China & Russia prehaps?

            “USAF commits nearly USD11 billion to future F-22 upgrades

            The USAF fields 186 F-22s, with the ‘fifth generation’ type’s all-aspect stealth making it difficult to detect for all but the most advanced of systems and dedicated of operators. It is employed in both the air-to-air and air-to-ground roles.”

            https://www.janes.com/defence-news/defence/latest/usaf-commits-nearly-usd11-billion-to-future-f-22-upgrades

          • It does when it is supposed to be an air superiority fighter.

            Is there anything you actually know or do you just spend all your time making this S..t up?

            “F-35 air superiority fighter

            The Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II is an American family of single-seat, single-engine, all-weather stealth multirole combat aircraft that is intended to perform both air superiority and strike missions. It is also able to provide electronic warfare and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities.”

          • Because F35 isn’t to replace F22. You know this Nigel. It’s good news F22 is getting this investment. Which says it’s replacement is a good few years down the line.

          • Since when has the F-35 been an air superiority fighter? It’s role is a strike fighter similar to past platforms like the F-4, FA-18.

          • Since it was designed.

            F-35 air superiority fighter

            The Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II is an American family of single-seat, single-engine, all-weather stealth multirole combat aircraft that is intended to perform both air superiority and strike missions. It is also able to provide electronic warfare and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities.

          • Nigel wrote:

            Why is the USA spending this amount of money if the F35 is a great air superiority fighter? Are they referring to China & Russia prehaps?

            I read about the upgrades a while ago here’s a cut and paste:
            The Raptor has received relatively few upgrades compared to legacy fourth generation F-15 and F-16 aircraft and now is significantly outdated in some ways. For example, F-16s, F-15s, and F/A-18s are all equipped with the JHMCS missile cueing technology, which allows a pilot to lock onto an aircraft just by looking at it. The F-22 currently does not have this capability.
            The upgrade for the F-22 comes in two parts: a hardware and a software upgrade. The upgrades are called Baseline 3.2B and Update 6. They have a couple goals: integrate the latest air-to-air missiles and improve the networked warfare capability of the F-22. These upgrades are the first step to fully integrating the AIM-9X and AIM-120D air-to-air missiles into the avionics of the F-22. The AIM-9X was planned to be integrated onto the F-22 since 2014, but the upgrade has been continuously pushed back. The missile itself was finally integrated in 2017, but it the JHMCS that is meant to be paired with it was not integrated. The latest upgrade will finally add a JHMCS-style helmet to the F-22. Conversely, other USAF and U.S. Navy aircraft have been using AIM-9X with JHMCS since the early 2010s. The upgrades also add new crypto technology to the F-22, a critical upgrade given how the F-22 is expected to work in hostile electronic warfare environments. This is paired with a “transmit” module for the Link-16 datalink, which would allow the F-22 to share as well as receive radar and other targeting data from other aircraft. The F-22 only had a “receive” Link-16 module earlier. The success of the F-35 as a targeting aircraft of sorts that uses its superior sensor capability to create a battlefield picture and then pass it onto older aircraft probably prompted the USAF to install an enhanced datalink in the F-22.The combination of the new datalink and new missiles will put the F-22 on parity with modernized fourth generation aircraft in weapons and networked warfare capability. The F-35 still remains ahead in sensor technology. Funding for an F-22 sensor upgrade will only come later in the 2020s and is likely to include an electro-optical module similar to the F-35’s EOTS and DAS systems to operate in heavy jamming environments. Such an upgrade would mirror the F-15X, which recently received a similar system.

            Also the USAF is replacing the central processor of which it has 2. They are capable of carrying out upto 2 billion instructions a second.The I7 chip in my desktop can carry out 128 Billion.newer chips go even faster.

          • Thanks for the information Farouk, very interesting.

            As I said, “Why is the USA spending this amount of money if the F35 is a great air superiority fighter? Are they referring to China & Russia prehaps?”

            F-35 air superiority fighter

            The Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II is an American family of single-seat, single-engine, all-weather stealth multirole combat aircraft that is intended to perform both air superiority and strike missions. It is also able to provide electronic warfare and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities.

          • Hi Gunbuster,

            The F22 will be replaced by the next sixth-gen fighter as will the F18 fighter with a version for the Navy by 2030, around the same time as Block 4 will hopefully be fixed.

            The USA requires advanced missiles in the near term to defend against China.

            Currently, the F-35B offers us no anti-ship capability (Spear 3) and limited air defence until the arrival of Meteor, both of which require Block 4 now slated for the very late 20’20s.

            It was designed with air superiority in mind but fails to do so (see my reply to M.X below and above).

            As the F-35 will not replace the ageing F-16 the USAF has to equip the F-22 to fill the gap.

            It’s a real mess simply because the F-35 has not delivered what it said it from the beginning and Sixth Gen is only nine years away.

            Not forgetting, Full-rate production is still on hold and will be for some time to come.

            So now the US is spending $11 Billion to equip a plane it intended to retire.

            “WASHINGTON — Top Air Force officials are now convinced the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor lacks the magazine depth and range needed to carry it into the next decade as the service’s air superiority fighter of choice.

            But the exact timing of its retirement will depend on how quickly the Air Force can put its sixth-generation fighter into production, said Lt. Gen. Clinton Hinote, the service’s deputy chief of staff for strategy, integration and requirements.”

            “By about the 2030 timeframe, you’re talking about a 40-year-old platform [in the F-22], and it’s just not going to be the right tool for the job, especially when we’re talking about defending our friends like Taiwan and Japan and the Philippines against a Chinese threat that grows and grows,”

            https://www.defensenews.com/air/2021/05/13/the-f-22-is-going-away-eventually-but-not-before-the-air-force-gets-comfortable-with-its-successor/

          • I thought you might find this interesting Farouk?

            “WASHINGTON — Top Air Force officials are now convinced the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor lacks the magazine depth and range needed to carry it into the next decade as the service’s air superiority fighter of choice.

            But the exact timing of its retirement will depend on how quickly the Air Force can put its sixth-generation fighter into production, said Lt. Gen. Clinton Hinote, the service’s deputy chief of staff for strategy, integration and requirements.”

            “By about the 2030 timeframe, you’re talking about a 40-year-old platform [in the F-22], and it’s just not going to be the right tool for the job, especially when we’re talking about defending our friends like Taiwan and Japan and the Philippines against a Chinese threat that grows and grows,”

            https://www.defensenews.com/air/2021/05/13/the-f-22-is-going-away-eventually-but-not-before-the-air-force-gets-comfortable-with-its-successor/

          • personally, I wish the US re-opened the F22 and built more of then as opposed to buying more F15’s.

          • Because the existing sustainment contract for the F-22 expires next year and they need a replacement to serve until the aircraft retires from service.

          • Here we go again, Nigel pissing on the F-35 while country after country orders the type and the production lines cannot keep up with demand.

          • With all the facts from the horse’s mouth instead of BS from the horse’s a…. Read the facts and learn something.

            F-35 air superiority fighter

            “The Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II is an American family of single-seat, single-engine, all-weather stealth multirole combat aircraft that is intended to perform both air superiority and strike missions. It is also able to provide electronic warfare and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities.”

        • Afternoon, James.
          I did use platform for the 35 and fighter for the Typhoon i.e. not knocking F35, hence ‘togetherness’. Always feel unconvinced by the argument that BVR is the be all, as virtually all modern aircraft can tote BVR. However, in hot war conditions it seems to me that foe are still going to close fast and then the more manoeuvrable type is likely to convert you into crispbread.by virtue of turn rate.
          Still trusting that Tempest (or whatever we end up with) is going to have that ability in one form or another, even it is deputised to loyal wingmen by virtue of resistance to g-forces.

      • I think a mix and match approach could work well but I don’t see the absolute need for the F35 here. In an early phase of a fight a bunch of stealthy loyal wingmen could act as long range sensor platforms feeding data back to a quarter-back / scrum-half, stand-off bulk-weapons carrier (sports theme here) the Typhoons can stand in that gap, maintain spatial dominance while that distant, modified A-400 or something fires off dozens of BVRAAMs to make life horrible for encroaching attackers.

        I could see the value of an F35 a little after that phase to coordinate the drones in a kind of sniping, running back mode, keeping attackers off the Typhoons. In this way the A-400 could maintain distance safely and keep launching other weapons.

        It is all interesting stuff, a stealthy, flying network of sensors really opens up the possibilities.

      • Hi Gavin, Achieving situation awareness (SA) over one’s opponent is the key to success in Air Combat. If I read correctly, the F-35 has SA in spades. It will see an adversary first – and get off the first missile-shot.

        Sometimes we over-emphasis the importance of dog-fighting. Historically, four out-of-five pilots never saw the guy who shot them down! Historian Mike Spick is very good on this topic – see his book the “Ace Factor”.

        But I certainly wouldn’t be adverse to an increase in Typhoon numbers. It’s an outstanding fighter-bomber – and through the TyTAN initiative much cheaper to operate than in the past. (It’s been claimed Typhoon is now comparable with later-model F-16s in that regard).

        For many air-forces, the high-operating costs of the F-35 are its Achilles-heel.

        • Evening. I hope for the future more than four out of five pilots will be paying attention to their now multitued of sensors., though.
          Rgs

        • A gun? Really?

          The days of dog fighting with cannon are….well over.

          If you are close enough to use a cannon: then the game is over as you have lost the SA battle.

          F35 is not a ground support airframe it is not the right platform for that. That is what we have drones and Apache for now.

          Why are high G pulls that important if you have long range SA and stealth?

          • I thought ground support was the a big point of the F-35 program? to replace F-16, A-10’s, Av-8B’s as well as FA-18 in multitole

          • Keep forgetting how they change things all the time seeing the original point of F-35 was JSF (JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER), my other issue with it being described as AS is it can only carry 2 AAM internally and if you put under wing it’s not much stealthier than a Typhoon. you can’t dominate the air space with 2 missiles!!! I can get first strike sneaking in clean an stealthy which for the US id great F-22 can take out CAP etc, F-35s take SAM’s then f-15E’s and B-1’s escorted by F-15C’s rollin with heavy loads trouble is we don’t have the volume (a/c or payloads)

          • Kinda dumb to risk a $100 million stealth fighter in doing strafing runs where it can be shot at by anything on the ground. It can use PGMs much more effctively for CAS and with impuntiy at stand off ranges and altitudes. The 25mm is for air combat, a lagacy of the USAF’s Vietnam experiences, and why they still demand a gun for last ditch air-to-air.

          • Good demand, of course. Those ‘puters working out the deflection. You can see why most assets are going to be unmanned.
            Best keep a sharp lookout for Cyberdyne Systems at this rate, James.

          • I was replying to an earlier comment suggesting that the F-35A was not an interceptor. Sure the F-35A has an AESA radar AMRAAM & Meteor missiles for long range interception, but if combat gets close, it can pull higher G & has a built in gun, unlike the B.

      • Hi,

        Sorry to say armed with Meteor/ASRAAM F35 is an air superiority fighter. It can detect and fire at any European plane before they know it. We will have the biggest 5th gen airforce in Europe. Then we will introduce Tempest.

          • I think the idea is that F35 kills before it reaches WVR. With modern dogfight missiles it is anyones game who will win. So best avoided.

            WVR the F35 will be good but it will not outperform a Typhoon or other super manoeuvrable fight. I think the G limit on F35B is 7 G compared to 9 G plus on Typhoon.

          • Absolutely, on your first point. But we’re now full circle with my first comments about the melee of hot engagements wherein BVR soon becomes WVR e.g. dogfight. Here it looks like pilot is saying F35 can slow sufficient to pivot-point the nose within turning radius of decent opposition. Again, not a comparison with Typhoon in the selected example I copied, but reassuring none the less.
            Thren, Typhoon with AESA plus mechanical pivot will have another string to add to off-bore targetting issue. Just like to see us get on and fit it since we’ve heard about it for years now.

      • I have only ever heard good things about Typhoon. Has it not done well against US fighters on RED Flag exercises, even F-22s?

        • I believe that when / if F22 is permitted to open more of it’s boxes of tricks, it beats everything to date, not purely Typhoon. But would be intrigued to know the real life situation, as would we all!

    • The MoD does Not intend to update the AAR contract to fit brooms to refuel from the tankers. The F-35A can only be refueled that way, Not the droge system for F-35B/C.

        • Two new extra USAF F-35A Squ’s. are coming to reside in UK in the next few months, so the KC-135’s will be very busy with USAF needs.

          • This months Aviation News, has a photo, page 37, USAF 100 Air Refuelling Wing KC-135 giving fuel to RAF E-3D ZH102 over the North Sea in 2002.

    • The F35A/C is not that much better then the C and running 2 types would require extra expensive support chains. Not to mention the reduction in aircraft that would be carrier capable on the QE class.

      The range of F35 can always be enhanced by air+to-air refuelling…

      Also I suspect more and more strike roles will go to drones and long range missiles. The days of RAF boys flying manned aircraft near the target are coming to an end.

      • Yes, but MoD has set against them. I don’t know if they are to be sold, or taken to bits for the parts. Italy & Spain had a proven upgrade for tranche 1 Typhoon, but UK has decided against this.
        Block 4 F-35A will be ready integrated with lots of useful weapons, B61-12, JSM, JSOW-C, AARGM-ER, JDAMS of all sorts, bunker busters, JASSM-ER. Its not just a new fighter, its the weapons it comes with.

    • It won’t happen. When the Typhoons retire, that will be that. Should not be retired, old steel in sky is better than none. steel in water is better that 17 war ships and as for the army??/ to think RAF/RN will get more that 40 of the (not that good F-35B) is just a dream

      If we want just a self defence force, we should leave all commitments including NATO and try and ringfence the UK – Silly? Things are that bad…

  2. The F35 proramme is expected to go on for a long time, probably longer than the lifespan of individual aircraft. It is consistent with what has been said to expect the F35 fleet to expand to about 60 and then, at a later date, for older airframes to be replaced with new. This would give 120+ aircraft, over the lifetime of the programme.

        • No, because they defer to 2025. Or kick can down road. With 48 1 Carrier wing is fully built up regards F35 so with one side saying the aircraft is crap, block 4 costs, and uncertainty over Vixen why the hurry.

        • There can’t be any plans or commitment until there is money to pay for them which will be next parliament surely. Also the landscape seems to be changing daily on the future of home grown aircraft and drones. F35 seems solid for the future of the carriers but what does the RAF think?

  4. As I have suggested before, I would be more than happy with 60 then 80 later a if the money could be found.

    I would not be happy with just 48 and switching to the A, that would be criminal and not maximising the potential of the carriers.

    Getting 138 does not mean at one time as a total force. It is a total buy over decades. As a total force the pilots and crews do not exist for them, nor the money, nor the infrastructure without reopening other fast jet stations.

    We also have Tempest. Getting both in numbers will not happen.

    Given this, the F35 force should, IMO, be all B, to furnish the carriers we have built. This is a step change in capability from the Sea Harrier / Invincible combination.

    After the 60 lets get Vixen instead to create these hybrid wings to increase mass. And some more Helicopters. As those…

    So around 100 Typhoon plus 60 F35B plus whatever UCAV we can deploy, could hopefully take the combat force to 200/250?

    • The Senior Service has more fast jet pilots than you may think. More than when we had SHAR’s. We do need to have 4 + frontline units of course but also the other air units to make up a CAG so many more ASW/AEW units to equip them so its not all about fast jets. VL can still take fast jets as it did before and has the space to take them too as does CU. No need to reopen stations although there are a few still there that could do easily if needed. Look up North.

      • I assume by “VL and CU” you mean Yeovilton and Culdrose.

        Neither have any HAS, which was the thrust of my “infrastructure” comment. A near 100 million aircraft should be suitably tucked up in HAS in my opinion. In modern times only the Jaguar and Harrier force, and the OCU’s of the Typhoon and Tornado force, did not use HAS, as Coltishall, Wittering and Cottesmore did not have any and I believe the OCU’s tend to use the ramp rather being dispersed in HAS sites on stations.

        Yes, the stations Leeming, Leuchars spring to mind. The latter is now army barracks though both have operational runways and the infrastructure is still in place AFAIK. Plenty of other stations around the country too with the HAS, fuel and Armament SSA’s to use, but would need reopening from nothing fast jet wise.

        • I’m sure someone could sneak over to RAF Marham and change the ‘RAF’ to ‘RNAS’ on a dark night.

          I totally haven’t changed ‘RAF’ to ‘CRAB’ before. 😂

        • In point yes always best to look after the hardware but HAS will never survive a real attack as we showed in the middle east and any one wanting to take out such a place will certainly take it out with a first strike anyway. Better close to the units they work with, as the B’s will mostly be at sea and expect them to be passed over to the RN in the not to distant future anyway once the light blues get some new toys. Already to many eggs in a few baskets because we are being run by accountants. You will never win either way. Both VL and Cu can accommodate extra flying units and and yes maybe Marham will be Dark Blue too 🙂 Dispersal may save some in such a situation but we are not and never been set up for it on the scale needed.

          • Trying to think where I saw it, but one country is building super tough HAS in order to survive most strikes.

          • So lets build fake HAS so it is not certain what is in them and requires more ordnance expended. If the aircraft are nicely lined up in rows they are certainly doomed!

            Ha, yes, when F35 was first confirmed everyone was suggesting St Mawgan ( Extreme excitement for our Lusty….)

            On the dispersal point, CAS mentioned it recently and there was an article here about it. Will be interesting how they get on with it but agree at the moment the enablers for that don’t exist on that scale. Maybe they will disperse to other stations with HAS, there are plenty. Maximises the enemies targets as you say rather than all in one place.

          • Mount Pleasant?

            I don’t think there are HAS there. Last time I looked they were Blast Revetments with a roof, Q Sheds. Not true HAS which are larger. HAS complexes used to include CBRN facilities and hardened ops centre too.
            The extras are a sensible contingency, which I think you know.

          • I stand corrected DM, zoomed in further not HAS just shelter was counting shapes in layout, still lot for 4 A/c, agree only 25% chance of hitting isn’t good odds 🙂 With Voyagers unable to self refuel inflight hate to think how many flights it would take to surge extra Typhoons ‘down South’ (an i don’t mean Boscombe Down)

          • Hah! That would have been nice!

            Though the true excitement for lusty would have been what Angus suggested: aircraft based at Culdrose with the words ‘ROYAL NAVY’ written down the side. I hope some of the not-so-regular commentators realise I’m speaking from the heart there, not from the head.

            I imagine Culdrose will be the base for larger drones when they come in, partly as the base has operated smaller drones and already operates some of the kit they’re likely to replace.

        • Hi Daniele, looking at various Google sat images of RAF Station most don’t have many HAS (CON = 20, MAR = 24 & LOS = 18) so if my maff right our 3 frontline combat airfields only have 62 HAS so 50% of our expensive jets are not tucked up 🙁 just sat in big old target (Hangars)

          • Because they should spread them out, ideally!

            Leeming had I recall 2 or 3 HAS sites. St Mawgan 1, Leuchars 2, Wattisham 2, Honington 2, Boscombe 1, then you have the USAF sites. I’ve not counted how many at each but be my guest!
            😆
            Lossimouth’s wing should have remained 2 Lossi, 2 Leuchars. Same with Leeming, Coningsby.

            The sites are there, we choose to save money and concentrate in one place. I understand the reasoning but disagree with it.

          • yeh, wonder if the ones at Leeming/Leuchars and Boscombe and being kept in reserve state to allow quick dispersal as still active camps (i know Leuchars is primarily Army camp now but you see aircraft doing circuts there

          • One of the HAS at Boscombe was being used as an aircraft store by a museum. I’d assume many others elsewhere are used for storage. Some HAS elsewhere have definitely found other uses.

    • Hi Daniele,
      Yes agree with your post and I’m also of the view that 70/80 in number would be fine. I’m guessing that the budget for the F35b program will be under constant review in conjunction with Tempest, the more Tempest is developed and achieved, possibly that F35b numbers will be reviewed.
      Cheers,
      George

  5. “intends to increase the fleet size beyond the 48 F-35 aircraft”

    I’m guessing that we are seriously considering moving on with Team Tempest and funding this programme instead of purchasing more than is necessary in the next four years.

    We reached out to industry recently for an EMALS CATOBAR solution which tends to suggest a future and larger unmanned drone to me?

    “In this exclusive look behind the scenes of Britain’s new Future Combat Air System, Jon Lake gets under the skin of an aircraft due to enter service in just 14 years’ time, and yet its configuration is still undecided – but intentionally so.

    Carrier implications

    Adapting the core manned Tempest fighter for carrier operations would be a massive task, and one that would impose tight constraints on the design. The aircraft would need to be able to withstand the stresses and fatigue loads imposed by arrested carrier landings and catapult launches, which would increase structural weight, although overall mass would still need to be kept relatively low.

    Quite apart from weight limits, the size of aircraft carrier deck elevators would restrict the aircraft’s overall length (and wingspan). Other design requirements would include a rugged, long-stroke carrier landing gear with associated additional internal volume and a suitable arrester hook, that would need to be fully retractable to preserve LO characteristics.

    Carrier operations would also demand enhanced corrosion protection, and potentially different LO treatments/ coatings. Take-off performance and lowspeed handling and control authority would need to be adequate for catapult launch.

    The aircraft would need to be able to fly a standard carrier approach, with the pilot getting a good view ‘over the nose’.

    Although BAE produced full-scale models of a notional Tempest design and displayed them at airshows at Farnborough, Fairford, Cosford and Duxford, and despite multiple computer-generated renderings and animations showing the same basic twin-finned, twin-engined tailless Delta design, the FCAS core element could look very different indeed.

    “The future of air operations will be about rapid and large-scale information exchange”

    – Iain Bancroft, director of major air programmes, Leonardo
    When AIR International spoke with Michael Christie in March 2021, he said  “we’re still looking at multiple options for the configuration of the core, manned, or optionally manned platform. We’re looking at the balance between the various components and at how best to distribute capability across the overall system.

    We will model various different sizes and shapes and the different capabilities and roles that each of the components carry out, trying to find the balance between the most effective and the most affordable. So we will be keeping our options open for a while yet.”

    What this means is that other elements of the ‘system of systems’ can be adapted to compensate for features that might be missing from the core platform, or vice versa. For example, if it is found to be more efficient and cheaper to leave penetrating reconnaissance to an adjunct, then that can be done.

    The NGAD and SCAF teams, working in a more traditional way, will very soon have to determine exactly what level of LO will be required –a decision that will result in the design being frozen. Team Tempest can continue to mull that over, and to take account of changes to the threat, and of the performance and characteristics of different adjuncts and effectors.

    Christie was unwilling to say how many configurations were being examined.
    “We’re looking at many configurations. But I don’t really want to give a number because I don’t think it means that much. We have the ability to assess many more configurations than before,” he said.

    “If I look back to the days when I was an aerodynamicist on Typhoon, we looked at a range of different configurations, the P110, P113, P120, etc. We had to go through a whole series of wind tunnel tests and gradually mature the product. I could never have depended on computational fluid dynamics in those days to do that.

    “I can do that synthetically now an awful lot more quickly than I was able to do it back in the 1980s. We can rattle through these configurations at a great pace. We can do things in a matter of days that would literally have taken months and years. In some of the work we’ve done, we’ve been able to run 60 configurations through a high-performance computer, again in a matter of days.

    “But I don’t necessarily want everybody continually looking at lots of configurations. We need to make a clear decision.”

    One of the concepts that has been looked at is to treat the core fighter as a ‘minimum viable platform’, adding software and plug-and-play equipment modules to flex its role, rather than treating the aircraft as a multi-role platform in the traditional sense. The same airframe shape would perform different roles, according to what equipment was fitted, but the different aircraft would fundamentally share the same platform.

    Carrier capability

    There have been numerous suggestions that the Tempest programme could or should produce a carrier-capable version (see Carrier implications, page 24). When Labour peer Lord West of Spithead (the former First Sea Lord) asked about this in February 2019, Earl Howe, the Minister of State at the Ministry of Defence, said that any new combat air system would “need to be interoperable with the Carrier Enabled Power Projection (CEPP) programme.” He added that carrier basing would be considered “for any unmanned force multipliers which may form part of the future combat air system,” while seeming to imply that there would be no requirement for a manned combat aircraft on the carrier beyond the F-35.

    There is a significant ‘carrier lobby’ in the UK, and some still press for a carrier-based version of the core manned fighter. AIR International asked Michael Christie how dismayed he would be if someone told him that there was now a requirement to operate Tempest from a carrier.

    “I’d be surprised, but I might not be dismayed. It will definitely be a challenge to do everything that we’re trying to do and also make it carrier suitable. If that’s a decision that is going to be made then it has to be made early, because it will have a profound effect on the configuration. Carrier capability would have to be built into the requirements. I don’t think it’s likely to be a requirement given that the UK already has a carrier capability.”

    With so much still to be decided it will be some time before anyone sees anything approaching a final Tempest aircraft design, even though Team Tempest is aiming to achieve an IOC (Initial Operational Capability) in 2035, with FOC (Full Operational Capability) in 2040.

    To get hung up on the configuration would be to fundamentally misunderstand what the FCAS is all about.”

    You do not have to pay to read the full article!

    https://www.key.aero/article/team-tempest-takes-new-approach

    • Isn’t this about the 5th time you’ve inserted this story from Jon Lake word for word?

      Jon Lake is a huge phony. That’s not his real name. For years he told everyone he was an ex-RAF pilot and expounded views on air combat. He spent years printing false information about the F-35 in multiple places until his publishers figured out he was a troll and pulled the plug.

      • You really are a total fool Ron 5 what an embarrassment to the USA on here along with your beloved F35.

        Grow up and READ THE REPORTS published by the DOD, GAO & DOT&E.

        The only thing that has changed in my links over the past five years are the dates as opposed to the endless faults.

        And Yes, I’m aware of the fact that you either work for LM or, like many on here and STRN, a complete idiot.

        The GAO report found that the current 2027 goal for finalizing the Block 4 modernization is “not achievable.” GAO said that costs of the effort had ballooned by $1.9 billion between 2019 and 2020, bringing the overall cost to about $14.4 billion.

        https://breakingdefense.com/2021/03/block-4-software-issues-could-cause-f-35-capability-delays-costly-retrofits/

      • In future, do not disrespect the people who have served our country to suit your own ends.

        Jon Lake is the author of several books for Osprey, including volumes on wartime aircraft like the Avro Lancaster and Bristol Blenheim, as well as modern combat aircraft like the MiG-29. One of the founding editors of World Air Power Journal, Lake is a regular contributor to a number of aviation magazines and newspapers. An RAF-trained private pilot Lake has written extensively about post war and contemporary military aviation. Mark has illustrated several books in both the Aircraft of the Aces and Combat Aircraft series. He has recently switched mediums from airbrush to Mac art, and has produced some of the best profiles Osprey has used to date in Combat Aircraft 18: ‘B-17 Flying Fortress Units of the Eight Air Force’ (part I) and Combat Aircraft 22: ‘Mitsubishi Type I Rikko Betty Units of World War 2’.

        https://www.wob.com/en-gb/books/author/jon-lake

        • Nigel wrote:

          “In future, do not disrespect the people who have served our country to suit your own ends….An RAF-trained private pilot”

          He has never served , not according to his bio on Linked Makes me question the “RAF trained private pilot pitch”

        • How exactly has Jon Lake served “our country”. He’s just a phony journalist that prints lies and distortions about the F-35 program. Just like you do.

          At least he’s progressed from claiming to be an RAF pilot to claiming to be “an RAF trained private pilot” . Whatever the heck that is. The RAF is not in the business of running a flying school. More lies from Lake I expect.

          • I don’t hence my comment to Ron 5 DOD, GAO & DOT&E. It’s always good to read the factual reports as I posted above in this thread.

            While DOD added another year to the schedule, GAO found the remaining development time frame is not achievable.
            The program routinely underestimated the amount of work needed to develop Block 4 capabilities, which has resulted in delays, and has not reflected historical performance into its remaining work schedule.

            Unless the F-35 program accounts for historical performance in the schedule estimates, the Block 4 schedule will continue to exceed estimated time frames and stakeholders will lack reliable information on when capabilities will be delivered.”

            We found that F-35 simulator delays continue to prevent DOD from completing initial operational testing and making a decision to move to full-rate production.

            The program office postponed a full-rate production decision from the previous plan of December 2019 to March 2021, which is now further delayed to a future unknown date, and continues to take steps to address ongoing risks such as: • high overall open deficiencies, • production delays and quality issues, • efforts to address Turkey’s removal from the supply chain and find new suppliers, and • aircraft not meeting reliability and maintainability goals.”

            https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-21-226.pdf 

          • The F-35 is currently in use or on order by 13 countries, including the United States, the UK, Italy, the Netherlands, Australia, Norway, Denmark, Israel, Japan, South Korea, Belgium, Poland and Singapore.

            In addition it’s been selected by Switzerland.

            There’s some facts for you and your pal Jon Lake.

            The F-35 is a huge technical and commercial success.

        • Saying the F-35 is crap because block 4 hasn’t been delivered yet is like saying Typhoon is crap because it doesn’t have an AESA radar yet. Both aircraft will be better with the upgrade. Both aircraft are excellent right now.

          F-35 running cost are going down year after year It’s already cheaper than Typhoon as shown by this years Swiss competition where Typhoon costs were ranked way worse than F-35.

          F-35 purchase cost is already 30% lower than Typhoon.

    • I really do hope the current model and artist’s impression of Tempest is a red herring and not what the aircraft will look like. Aerodynamically it could be classed as ok, but could do better!

      • I’m guessing more along the lines of Taranis/Magma using blown air for control? increased stealth, less weight.

        The possibility of a carrier-based version further down the line sounds promising, but then again so did the Navalised Typhoon!

        • Partially.

          For speed the airframe needs to be longer, look at the YF22 and compare it with the YF23. The YF23 would be a very good foundation, even though the design is now 35 years old. A longer aircraft is better for producing less supersonic drag compared to a shorter one. One of the reasons is that the primary shock cone generated by the nose, is delayed before it strikes the wing tips. The longer you can delay the shock cone touching the airframe the less drag will be generated, eg F104 Starfighter.

          A modern fighter needs the ability to have a lot of control authority at very high angles of attack. To do this, you need to place a large pitching moment as far back from the CoG as possible. Further, you need large surface areas to generate the lift to generate a faster pitch rate from an all moving surface. This helps to give the aircraft the ability to point its nose even when at low energy levels, i.e. during a one circle turning fight.

          Both the YF22/F22 have awesome pitch control, which is helped by the vectored thrust exhaust, but predominately through the two large area elevons. On the YF23, this was achieved by the highly canted over “ruddervators”, that perform both pitch and yaw functions. The surface area of a ruddervator was similar to the area of an F16 main wing. The YF22/F22 had a faster pitch rate than the YF23 due to the angle of the elevon, i.e. flat and in-line with the oncoming air. Though it isn’t ideal, as it has a lot of disturbed flow over it due to how close it is to the main wing’s trailing edge. It’s similar with the Su57. However, as 1/3 of the elevon starts within the main wing, the vortex that travels down the root of the wing is also used. As the elevon can use this to help with pitch deflection.

          For the current model of Tempest, the fuselage behind the cockpit needs to be extended. A leading edge root extension (LERX) could be added from the engine intake to the leading edge. This will generate a much stronger vortex at higher angles of attack than the one that would be generated by the sharp outer edge of the intake. The vortex can then be used by the ruddervators to help with pitch control. The ruddervators themselves need to be placed further back, so that the majority of the area is behind the two exhausts (longer lever). I would also flatten the angle to near 45 degrees. At this angle they can make full use of the LERX generated vortex, but still perform both yaw and an air brake functions. Having the ruddervators either side of the exhaust will also help to screen their IR signature and lower the RCS form the sides.

          You could get rid of the ruddervators along with the ailerons and flaperons completely by using the forced air control. But to make that work the aircraft will need a very high surplus of engine power, as some 1/4 to 1/3 of the available engine air will be needed for flight control especially as the aircraft will be inherently unstable. You could I suppose, look at installing dedicated compressors for the flight controls driven by the engines.

          I always thought the current model of Tempest looks a bit like a modern version of the Firefox aircraft.

          • LOL, It has been mentioned that the final version will look different to the current graphical representation of Tempest.

            I wonder if the final size will be similar to that of the J20, built for extended range and missile loadout?

        • Shouldn’t we be establishing what needs to be undertaken to ensure that Tempest IS operable from QE and PoW. Likely to need Cats and Traps but what of the aircraft development? Surely would enhance export potential of Tempest?

          • Try posting some facts, if you know what that actually means. 🙄

            Synthetically, try keeping up with what’s happening in the world today.

            Any news on the replacement for the F-16?

            As for the F-22, $11 Billion and all because the F-35 is unable to carry out its role as an air superiority fighter sufficiently to deter or compete against the likes of China and Russia until the 20’30’s.

            What a mess eh!

            I thought you might find this interesting!

            “WASHINGTON — Top Air Force officials are now convinced the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor lacks the magazine depth and range needed to carry it into the next decade as the service’s air superiority fighter of choice.

            But the exact timing of its retirement will depend on how quickly the Air Force can put its sixth-generation fighter into production, said Lt. Gen. Clinton Hinote, the service’s deputy chief of staff for strategy, integration and requirements.”

            “By about the 2030 timeframe, you’re talking about a 40-year-old platform [in the F-22], and it’s just not going to be the right tool for the job, especially when we’re talking about defending our friends like Taiwan and Japan and the Philippines against a Chinese threat that grows and grows,”

            https://www.defensenews.com/air/2021/05/13/the-f-22-is-going-away-eventually-but-not-before-the-air-force-gets-comfortable-with-its-successor/

          • So what about those Tempest carrier capable models you claim are being tested??

            You’ll notice I’m ignoring your blatant red herrings of dragging in F-22 and F-26 into a discussion on the UK’s F-35Bs which presumably you are now claiming will be replaced by carrier capable Tempests..

      • Been saying this since day one 🙂 To Quote Myself : “I sincerely hope, it doesn’t end up looking like this. Its unbalanced, looks like a fisher price toy. I’m a firm believer in Geoffrey de Havilland’s view that if it looks right it probably is right. This mock-up doesn’t look right, at all. Nasty, Yuk 🙂”

    • Interesting, a commitment to 4 operational Squadrons…

      I make the break down as follows for a proper sustainable four squadron force.

      4 X 12 aircraft operational squadrons
      1 X 8 Operational Conversation Unit
      1 X 4 Trials Unit
      10X in use reserves
      30 X fleet maintenance reserve

      = 100

      So what can be trimmed to fit four active squadrons into an 80 aircraft total fleet?

      9 aircraft squadrons?
      No in use reserves?
      A very small maintenance reserve?

      In use reserves are critical, as availability can be an issue with such a complex aircraft. If two squadrons need to muster quickly, we don’t want to be gutting the other two of airframes to mobilise them.

      Along the same lines, a healthy maintenance reserve will be critical as these jets will need regular updates and upgrades.

      Less than 100 in total and something needs to give by my reckoning….

      • Cut the squadrons to 10 each, roll the OCU and Trials units into one, keep the in use reserve as ten and reduce the maintenance reserve to twenty.
        That’s two operational squadrons deployed with each CVW, upon return they’re rotated into the FMR, those two reequip with the in use reserve and a squadron fresh out of maintenance with the other becoming the in use reserve. Not sure if that would actually be sustainable or workable, I’d feel a lot more confident if it was four operational, two in reserve and two in maintenance. Course that means a buy of 90 but might it be worth it for a more robust cycle?

        • In essence there is no such thing as an in-use reserve. If we take Typhoon for example, each aircraft has a predestined maintenance cycle with varying levels of servicing from basic to strip everything out, carryout non-destructive testing of the frames, repair as necessary and then rebuild.

          Although this may sound bonkers, an aircraft straight off the production line will go in to a deep level servicing. This is to make sure the whole fleet’s maintenance cycle is staggered, so that there are say 1 in 10 aircraft going through deep level maintenance. The aircraft that are in deep level maintenance make up your reserves. This is because its uneconomical to have aircraft sitting around cocooned in reserve. As they will inevitably require pipes and seals replacing when they are reactivated. There is also a phenonium, in that when avionics equipment is not used for more than a couple of months it also inevitably breaks on first switch on, further delaying reactivation.

          • I’m just going off what John said mate. It was simply just a rough try at fitting 80 aircraft into the parameters he suggested. Honestly, I was kind of using ship maintenance cycle of deployed, deep maintenance, light stuff for deployment preparedness, as a basis which should tell you all you need to know.

        • Trials and OCU, are completely different things! A lot of students in an OCU. Trials Squ. are for Post-graduate types..
          You cannot merge them.

          • Have I mistaken what the two are? I was under the impression that the OCU is for pilots qualifying as the final part of their training/requalification and the Trials unit is testing, evaluating and integrating equipment and the like. And I was thinking more a Training&Trials squadron, so the OCU and Trials Unit John said minus one plane each, so seven and three respectively.
            If I messed that right up then meh, it was merely a rough attempt at getting four squadrons, an OCU, TU and reserves out of 80 planes.

          • Trials squadrons or OEU’s, have only a small number of aircraft specifically built for testing, with extra sensers, otherwise know as ‘orange wired’ aircraft. They would require further work on them to be combat capable. So OEU’s they are not classed as combat squadrons and not counted as such. The personal in a OCU are experts in their fields.
            OCU’s can be counted as combat capable squadrons so are reserved Squadrons

      • Hi John. Thank for outlining this structure. Out of curiosity , how does the RAF determine the number of reserve aircraft required for each jet combat squadron? Keen to her any insights you may have.

        • Hi Klonkie, basically, the maintenance reserve is the portion of the fleet that’s unavailable at any one time undergoing upgrade and servicing etc.

          You could extrapolate that a fleet of 100 will probably have 30 machines in differing states of maintenance and the F35B is a maintenance intensive airframe. Coupled to that as an extremely sophisticated machine, regular software drops will also be required.

          Tempest is promising a level of sophistication that will make the F35 look quite old hat, you can guarantee it will require extensive systems maintenance and updates too, so will require a similar fleet active/maintenance ratio.

          The great unknown (as has been suggested) is the UCAV mix in the future, will they be integrated into a squadron as a whole, or packaged in as needed?

          I do hope that common sense comes to the fore and the FAA and RAF can share a common UK UCAV airframe design, assuming it can be made in an affordable way.

          The RN have a rather extensive capability ‘wants list’ from their UCAV and it could make the costs spiral out of control if it isn’t closely monitored.

          • The numbers actually work something like this:

            a) 12 frontline aircraft in a fast jet squadron
            b) 25% in squadron reserve i.e. 3 aircraft on standby/in the garage
            c) 25% in war reserve i.e. 3
            d) 10% of a+b in attrition reserve i.e. 2.5

            Plus, at wing level,
            e) 2 a/c for the Wing Cdr

            Plus, at whole force level,
            f) 3 in the OEU, 2 operational and one in the garage
            g) one training aircraft per 6 frontline aircraft plus 25% squadron reserve and 10% attrition reserve.

            As pointed out above the aircraft rotate between these roles, so that flying hours per airframe are uniform across the fleet.

            If you apply that equation to 48 F-35 aircraft, you get:

            24 frontline aircraft
            6 squadron reserve
            6 war reserve
            3 attrition reserve
            2 Wingco
            3 OEU
            4 OCU

            The OCU figure should really be 5.5, but the MOD wishes to believe that the use of simulators reduces the requirement – the RAF is less convinced.

      • The operational squadron would include the drones, probably in a 1-2 or 1-3 manned to unmanned ratio. You would then only need 16-24 fighters for the active squadron not 48.

    • Nope, that goes beyond hyperbole exaggeration to being just plain wrong. Plenty of space to fit a small set of cats and traps for drones in existing design.
      The only question would be powering the cat, but I suspect the QE class has sufficient electrical capacity already.

  7. tbh at this point i kinda agree with not getting them all early for the sake of it…. the later we wait the more we save on upgrading earlier ones as they keep fixing issues…. im pretty sure the real early ones will never be upgraded to the latest as it would be basically impossible…

  8. The Qinetiq Banshee has two underwing hardpoints, I wonder if it could be fitted with ASRAAM and used as a loyal wingman?

  9. Why buy expensive platforms only to spend loads more sponds to upgrade them later to our minimum requirements?

    Wait until the requisite capability is there – make the blighters wait.

    They will never rush if the sponds are coming in.

  10. Even 138 is on the low side considering they won’t all be in service at the same time and split between the RN and RAF. 80 is just pathetic. But I try to be an optimist, at least we have a carrier force!

    • The aircraft are not split between the RAF and RN. They are operated as a joint force, with each F35 sqn has a 50/50 manning split of RAF/RN personnel. This is a carry over from Joint Force Harrier.

      • Whether we call it a ‘joint force’ or a ‘split’ doesn’t bother me, the outcome is the same. Essentially we have too few aircraft and pilots.

        • But we are buying more. And you have to remember the capability of this aircraft. 4 F35’s could do the job of 12 or more F16’s, and be far more survivable. And we have to be realistic about what we can achieve within the defence budget. We have a very long list of very capable and expensive equipment entering service over the next 10 years.

          • True, they are more capable aircraft. But our potential enemies are also getting more capable so relatively speaking if we replace 1-1 new for old then we are standing still. Since the F35 is replacing Harriers and Tornado but in far fewer numbers at a time when the likes of Russia and China are also upgrading their capabilities the I would suggest in relative terms we have seen a significant capability reduction.

            We’re buying more than 48…considering I thought 138 was too few then ‘more than 48’ doesn’t really get me too excited!

  11. …Waits for logic to prevail and F-35B’s to be transferred to RN control.

    I read the comments below and noted none observed that the QE class can easily embark more than 24-36 FA assets and that to support potentially two air wings requires many more than just multiplying the before mentioned number by 2.

    Sea-blindness is contagious.

    • I think that might just be because many here look at the costs of fielding even 48 and that it is likely that wings of that size will not happen. So being realistic, smaller numbers of 1 or 2 squadrons up to 24 may be more the norm, despite the greater numbers the carriers can carry?

    • Dam right!! Fly Navy.

      Carriers were designed for a 36 F-35 load with 14 additional helicopters.

      Minimum 90 F-35 should be the target.

  12. Surely the UK can afford to buy more than 48 F35’s. Even Norway is buying 52 F35A’s and Australia is considering ordering 72 or more F35A’s.

    • Basically we are broke, probably bankrupt on any accounting, as opposed to political, based measure. Norway still has significant oil and gas coming out of the ground. It also does not have significant competition for funds as we do with our SSBN replacement program. I would hazard a guess that Aus is heading towards serious funding issues given all they are trying to do set against the risk of reducing demand for their minerals from China.

      • Not strictly speaking true! We might have a large national debt issue, but, the government receives billions in various taxes over the year, and chooses Not spend more on defence then it does at present.
        Whether this has anything to do with winning votes is all irrelevant, if they choose to spend money elsewhere.

        • Having an income does not negate being bankrupt, it is when expenditure exceeds income as ours has quite dramatically over the past couple of years. That makes future expenditure plans more risky, whilst if interest rates rise, that is a voyage into the unknown otherwise known as a World financial meltdown.

          • No, agree, having an income does not negate being bankrupt. Not having a prudent fiscal policy to bring excessive expenditure under control doesnt appear to be high on the governments ‘to do’ list either!
            None of which is going to stop the government spending! HS2, NHS, Education etc will all continue to receive money, said goverment will still decide how much is allocated to X,Y and Z. This is rightly or wrongly where we are currently at, with defence low on the priority list. It could be more if they choose too, or indeed less!

    • We are buying more F35’s beyond 48, we just don’t know how many yet. The problem is, we are spending a lot of money, but it only goes so far. We are upgrading Typhoon tranche 2/3 with some very capable upgrades, but they are not cheap.We are also funding Tempest, and need the money for more F35’s. Other nations aren’t doing all of that, plus funding new aircraft carriers, T26, Dreadnought SSBN’s ect….. It’s a long expensive list.

  14. Shouldn’t we be encouraging the Australians and Singapore to be procuring a mix of F 35 A/Bs so that they could operate their Bs from QE/PoW, one of which to be base ported at Fleet Base East/ Singapore. This year is the 50th Anniversary of the FPDA. Am I trying to re-invent the Far East Fleet? It would certainly demonstrate an integrated joint response to theChinese threat. The CTG could be rotated. CSG was not a first. 1942 and 1943 saw HMS Victorious join USS Saratoga following the depletion of US flat tops following Midway. Vic became USS Robin, crewed by RN in USN rig, with a USN Air group!

    • I’m not sure any country would order aircraft that only make sense to them if deployed on someone else’s carrier. Singapore ordered 4 F35B to trial them, with options for more. I think the idea is to use roads and other locations besides their airfield(s) in order to scatter resources if need be. Not sure where they are with this as couldn’t find an update beyond the initial order.

    • I had not heard that one of our carriers would be base-ported in Fleet Base East/Singapore. I had to google FBE – turns out it is a RAN base near Sydney.

      Are you sure? How did we all miss that announcement? Where is the reference to that? Why would we do that? Would we base-port some escorts over the other side of the world too? I can see more disadvantages than advantages.

  16. 69 F-35B each for the Royal Air Force and Royal Navy was arguably logical if everything had worked the way it was supposed to

    Looking back at it, like the 150 F-4 Phantom II each for the Royal Air Force and Royal Navy in the 1960s

    It seems maybe was too ambitious

    In hindsight, a Joint-Force Phantom and Buccaneer might have been a good idea

    • I always like historical references (Phantom, Buccaneer) but are they not a bit too far back in time?

      Regarding the F-35s, what has not worked the way it was supposed to? Do you mean that no-one expected the high unit cost?

  17. Talk of eventually getting 138 F-35s is a long shot when you look at the procurement funds available and the procurement window between now and Tempest in 2035.

    The Combat Aircraft budget is £1.7 bn per year from 2019 to 2029.. That has to cover upgrades weapons, operating costs, commercial contractors etc etc. Based on our annual purchase of Typhoon and projected purchases of F-35, our annual budget for new aircraft looks to be around £530m a year.

    So we can afford 6.5 F-35s @ currently £80m pa , reducing to 5 @ £100m when Block 1V is added.

    So we could have:

    48 by 2025
    A further 24-26 by 2029
    A pause for 2-3 years while we pay for Block 1V – 70 @ £20m a year = £1.4bn, or nearly 3 years’ funding.
    So a total of 72-74.

    It is possible that we could purchase
    5 a year in 2033 and 2034 and another dozen while Tempest is at Low Rate Initial Production, taking the total to 94-96.

    But I would think very little chance of that happening, there is nowhere near enough in the kitty as yet for Tempest development and it is a safe bet that the budget will be siphoned off to fund it. All this assuming that Tempest gets to the starting line let alone in 2035.

  18. What are you on about now? What is it that you dispute?

    Block 1V is expected to cost £20m per aircraft?
    F-35A is currently down to £58m, excluding Block 1V?
    F-35B is currently costing £80m, excluding Block 1V?

    All these figures have been reported endlessly in the aviation press and in US defence and congressional statements. If you have evidence to the contrary, do please share it.

    If not, do please give it a rest.

    • Ref Block 1V costs, nobody has said definitively what the real cost per aircraft will be, there is a haze of smoke over the subject. In a question to the Defence Minister in the debate on the defence review the opposition shadow asked how much B4 would cost and how many Lightnings would be upgraded. Quinn dodged the former and was non-committal on the latter.

      So we need to dig deeper. The Pentagon informed Congress in 2019 that Block 1V would add $22bn to the cost of the US F-35 programme. That led some to divide $22bn by 3,000+ eventual aircraft, giving a figure of anything between $7.5m and $13m per aircraft.

      The flaw in that is that Lockheed is not going to wait 20 years to recoup its investment, it will be divided up among those queuing at the factory gates in 2030. So $22bn divided by maybe 800 aircraft by then= $36m per plane/.£27m.

      An interesting reference for you is The Drive , June 34 2020. On the subject of Block 1V, it features a tweet from Gareth Jennings (Janes) that £22m per aircraft is the figure he’s seen bandied about. Janes is generally right on the ball, so I would go with that.

      Crying ‘false and ‘bogus’ from the wings, when you don’t seem to have much in the way of facts on the subject, does not enhance the credibility of your postings.

      • You are mixing up the cost to upgrade existing aircraft to a block iv standard with the costs of a new built block iv aircraft.

        In other words you can’t add the cost of a new F-35 to the cost of an upgrade of an old F-35, to get the cost of a brand new block iv aircraft.

        Hence my use of “bogus”.

        The rest of your math is just silly. Lockheed doesn’t fund development of new features out of its own pocket to be recovered later, any more that Bae funds the development of Typhoon upgrades to be recovered via the cost of new aircraft.

        As a tier one partner, the UK pays the same price as the US military for their F-35B’s and that is exclusive of development cost.

        Your math reminds me of the crooked math Jon Lake has used in the past to over inflate F-35 prices.

  19. But my dear Blackadder what is a “squadron”? Being foolish and naive When someone says “squadron” to me think ten or twelve aircraft. Unfortunately, in today’s RAF a squadron can actually be just one or two. For example think P8.

    • The nine P-8s are split between two sqns – 120 Sqn and 201Sqn – and an OCU, so that probably 4 per sqn – and one for the OCU. I would expect that number for a highly specialised aircraft.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here