Britain takes delivery of more F-35 jets

Given the number of weapons cleared for use by now. I’d imagine it’s just a matter of amending existing code

At some point in reasonably near-term future (Lot 1X?), hardware upgrades which are necessary to support Block 4 software upgrade will be incorporated into a/c baseline. Then, only Mt. Software to summit. 🤔😳

If the next weapon being integrated uses the same hardware as any of the previous integrated systems maybes, if not its a full software package needed.

You also have to model how the weapons will react when released into the aircrafts airflow and then do validation tests to see the models were right.

Yes. AMRAAM is carried internally, and can be fired at supersonic speeds.

Having visited the yard up at Barrow and seeing what goes on in an Astute. I can categorically state that from a system’s engineering approach. The Astute is well ahead of the F35 in terms of networking and integration.

With the multi-ECU approach, you can also have system redundancy. Where you use the same ECUs but give each a specific role. Which might be flight control, nav and weapons control. But as each talk to each other, they can also monitor each other. So, if one falls down due to a BIT failure, the others can take up the role or parts of that role.

Problem with cutting Ajax is it leaves a 500+ size tracked vehicle hole in the army. Something would still need to be purchased to replace the worn out vehicles currently used.
Also cutting the contract would probably involve paying the £5.5 billion without getting anything. If it is to be cancelled it needs to be done correctly. Billions has already been spent and I would imagine general dynamics UK would cease operations declaring bankruptcy. So that then only leaves the money left in the budget which is not much.
The contract is probably a real nightmare for either side to get out of.
Best solution in my eyes is getting the vehicles fixed and operational at the agreed price.

The MOD / Abbey Wood are not quite the commercial caricature villains/ idiots so many on here make out.

They will be giving GD enough rope and support to hang themselves if they tried to pull the plug.

I’m pretty sure that various people will looked into GD-US whites of eyes.

I do t think anyone will need to articulate the consequences of GD pulling the plug from a reputation point of view. The British military viewpoint is very highly regarded and is riding high on just how effective our old stock weapons and tactics are against the Orcs. We are also rightly seen by others as a military power capable of projection with a chunky weapons program spend. M

If GD stuff the UK over: who is going to trust them again?

Getting closer to December so I guess we will know what is happening then. Hopefully

Nothing probably. It’s needed, the Army want it.

Yes, desperately needed. Most things are fixable so it should all be fine.
Next concern of mine is the cannon. Is it going anywhere else? Navy going with bofors 40mm. A good idea would be making a module for boxer with the cannon and trying hard to show it fitting into other platforms.
It could become expensive making ammo

Well, if you want to believe an article in yesterday’s Telegraph, GDUK just paid it’s shareholders a £80 million dividend???? Go figure that!

That’s nice of them. In other telegraph news I saw a headline that says the uk is shipping the latest brimstone models to Ukraine. They have double the range at 7.5 miles in ground launch mode.

I can believe it. £80m is not a huge sum for an arms supplier. What do you read into this?

Given the issues with Ajax, it’s a bit of a P**s take in my opinion. Surely whatever the reasons for the issues GDUK should at least appear to be going the extra mile to be seen to be putting things right?
Hopefully we will have learnt a lesson from this and only use established suppliers in the future.

Good to have some reality here. GDUK is not a company with a lot of money in the bank – they are hugely reliant on Ajax to prosper – I am very sure they would cease trading if Ajax is cancelled. Very hard to believe that the MoD would get much if any of the £3.2bn spent back, but don’t see that we would give GDUK another £2.3bn for no additional work.

We must get the vehicles fixed and in service.

RGT is resuming at ATDU with green crew. Most training systems are in place and handed over to MOD. REME are being trained to maintain. Validation trials of enhancements to mitigate N&V have exceeded predictions.

Thanks Ian. When is GD or the MoD going to release such info – surely they should be crowing about this?

RGT?
ATDU – Army Trials and Development Unit?
N&V – Noise and vibration issues?
Thanks for any clarification!

Reliability Growth Trials
👍

If Ajax is cut how will the army conduct recce and strike?

Solider on an electric dirt bike with binoculars and a walkie talkie.

I love your diplomatic language… likely… to be cuts?

I welcome the increase in numbers, caution over our inability to integrate our own, sometimes, better systems because of US vested interests, but, heavens, this UK administration has to go.

Finally, Brexit has to be addressed; I doubt in the lifetime of many on here it will be reversed but the enormous economic damage it has done is finally being recognised which brings me to my final point, recession will cut the defence budget, and our recession is self inflicted.

Yes people who opposed Brexit before during and after the referendum 6 years ago. Are appalled by the result of a decision they opposed have never accepted and have tried to overturn with every measure short of military coup. Shocker.
2016-22 annual GDP growth
UK 2.3% EU 1.9% source world bank
UK 2.1% EU 2.6% ”
UK 1.7% EU 1.8% ”
UK 1.7% EU 1.6% ”
UK -9.3% EU -6.4% ”
UK 7.4% EU 5.4% ”
UK 4.2% EU 3.2% source OECD
total GDP growth
UK 10.1% EU 10.1%

We get it you love brexit😂😂😂😂

Mmm… Yougov shows support for Brexit down to 36%, that’s the number who now think it was the right decision.

So not all recalcitrant Remainders then…!

A lot of people just cannot rap their heads around that….it’s because we have not had a generational shift for such a long time or really seen Fifth generation fighters in operations against a forth generation airforce. If you told them that having buck loads of Third generation F104s would allow you to fight in parity against even a squadron of f15s or Typhoons they would laugh at you but….the change from fourth to fifth generation passes a lot of people by.

You funny boy.

Serbs vs US, m’lud. US jets were found and targeted…. even the stealthy ones.

What we need are more and the pilots to go with them. Absolutely, formidable 🙂 and a game changer.

Not today good on historical facts are you?
• Zero US jets were shot down by Serbian jets.
• Over 700 SAMs fired and yet they only managed to bring down one F-16 and one F-117.

ONLY, one F117? No one mentioned A2A.

What I did mention was that we had a formidable aircraft.

Stealthy means stealthy, and not invisible. Given the use of the F-117 in that conflict it’s surprising more weren’t lost.

Seems he forgets that the Serbs lost that war…

Many Serbs still have a bee in their bonnet over that loss.

But hey, they fucked around and found out.

That’s because we and NATO are not at war with Russia. Our F35s have been deployed to the Baltics and Poland though.

Roberts on the right side of this argument, Davey. He’s arguing that the “many other types” that our enemies (in this case Russia) supposedly have have been useless over Ukraine.

I wouldn’t say that. I would definitely say is that the way they been employed has been inconsistent and in some cases incompetent.

What the conflict has very clearly shown is the technological gap between the standard Russian aircraft avionics, defensive aids and precision guided weapons, compared to a NATO aircraft. The other major lesson that has been learned is how the aircraft are employed, along with the amount of training the pilots receive.

But the big thing here Davey is the difference between 4th and fifth generation…no one would have ever even considered a F104 squadron would ever be able to in anyway compete with an f15 or F14 squadron…all they would do is expect them to die.

I would tend to agree. A fairly recent example is when a Pakistani F16 shot down an Indian Mig21 Bis. The Mig has had several avionics upgrades to try to keep it effective. But it was simply outclassed by the F16 and the AMRAAM.

However, an Indian Mig21 has shot down a Pakistani F16 with a R73 WVR missile. The precise details of this engagement are fairly vague. As it would mean that the F16 would have had to be pretty close to the Mig, for the R73 to intercept, as its range isn’t brilliant.

But in general, both the MIg21 and F104 are constrained by their designs. Of having really slim fuselages, a long-pointed nose, or a moveable air intake cone. Which means the radar that they use will have some serious limitations due to the small size of the antenna that can fit in either nose. Therefore, in a real shooting match 9 times out of 10, the F16 with AMRAAM will have the advantage of BVR engagements.

Rock this forward to today. The F35, has a similar advantage against most other fighters bar the F22. In some respects, it is better than the F22 as it has better network integration and passive sensors. Where the F22 must currently rely on its own low probability of intercept radar or from 3rd party information, such as a Sentry. The F35 can do all its hunting on its own, whilst maintaining low observability by using its passive sensors.

Davey, Robert said “Well none of them have been any use over Ukraine.” in response to which you said “that’s because we’re not at war with Russia”. My point is that Robert was talking about Russian aircraft as opposed to Western ones.

Oh hang on… the Russian Sukhoi Su-57. How about those? 🙄

The SU-57…..you mean all 16 of them?

Russia has 5, thats five times fewer aircraft than the U.K. has F35s 😆

I wouldn’t use the Russian airforce that after nearly 300 days still does not control the skies of Ukraine, despite it’s vaunted Su-57’s, as an example Tom. Lay off reading Pierre Spreys Russia Today interviews.

Not even stealthy, it has a slightly better radar cross section (RCS) than a Rafale. Which has the lowest 4th gen RCS of the Western aircraft. A point of fact was that when the Su57s were being trialled over Syria, both the RAF’s E3D Sentry and the RAAF’s E7 could detect them easily at range.

Until Russia manufacture the Su57 with proper low observable construction methods, such as wide-band radar absorbent materials. But more significantly by hiding rivet and screw lines, covered in a RAM material. Non-spherical IRST housings, hidden 1st stage compressors via an S-duct etc. Then there is the items we can only speculate on, such as the data fusion, and wideband encrypted directional data-links, requires more evidence to put in a similar ball-park to the F35.

At the moment the Su57 cannot be classed as a 5th gen fighter, but a more aerodynamically efficient 4.5gen aircraft

Russian data fusion is the pilot looking at multiple screens and making sense of what on earth he’s looking at

Wait, they have screens now!

Yep they got these digital ones from Ukrainian washing machines.

Actually everything I’ve ever seen on RCS had Typhoon having a significantly smaller RCS than Rafale or other ‘Gen 4/4.5 aircaft’.

Which isn’t a surprise…both the UK and Germany had a real understanding of LO design at the time of Typhoons design. France on the other hand had none whatsoever…

Sadly not. The frontal aspect of Rafale‘s RCS is smaller than Typhoon’s. Rafale has a smaller airframe and wingspan. But crucially it is the placement and shape of the engine intakes.

By splitting the intakes the lip of the splitter is halved compared to Typhoon’s. The shorter splitter lip generates a smaller return.

However, Typhoon’s under fuselage central singular intake has the advantage of being better for maintaining air flow during certain manoeuvres. It is also more efficient at supersonic speeds as it provides a greater pressure differential.

Typhoon could easily have side mounted intakes. But higher speed and airflow had the higher priority over a slightly lower RCS. Like I said, Rafale does have a smaller RCS from the front and sides. This is predominantly from its smaller size. Both aircraft also incorporate some radar absorbent materials, particularly in the intakes. When you start adding pylons, drop tanks and weapons both aircraft’s RCS nearly doubles. Though Typhoon with its four semi-recessed Meteors has a slight advantage.

I agree when Typhoon was being designed both the UK and Germany had a great deal of knowledge on radar absorbent materials but also how aircraft shaping affects radar reflection. So why didn’t Typhoon have twin canted fins over the single fin? Why does it still have 90 degree corners, vents in the fuselage and poor fillet shaping between the main wing and fuselage?

I think it came down to cost and an aerodynamic philosophy of keep it simple stupid. Typhoon could have been a lot stealthier.

Well I hope you’re well paid for your nonsense posts.

Don’t think it was a nonsense post really. His point that we do not have that many is valid enough.

We probably have enough already to defend the carrier strike group against a medium level attack by standard 4 and 4+ gen hostiles.

We don’t yet have enough to carry out much in the way of interdiction.

While the F-35 may (or may not, depending on the Block 1V outcome and other gremlins) be a technological marvel, its stealth, data fusion and SEAD capabilities look way ahead of the Chinese so far.

At the same time, the B version has a limited range, small weapons payload and likely limited speed, as well as being £20m+ more expensive per aircraft than the more capable A version.

We are basically getting a capable strike fighter that is suitable for a carrier group but not long range strike. While the original idea was that it would also do close air support for the ground forces, I wonder if the forces would risk it in any near-peer conflict, given the multitude of capable sir defence systems of every variety.

I don’t know, but would a LLAD system like Starsteak be able to knock out an F-35? One for our experts, come in DaveyB!

North Korea has zero 5th gen jets.
Have you even heard of Google? 🤷🏻‍♂️

Hi Sean,
Your posts are spot on. Can you and the other experts here give me advice as to how Australia has more F35A”s as opposed to the UK’s low numbers whichobviously are a variant being the F35B.
What is the difference?
Cheers,
George

Hi George, thanks for the complement but I’m not an expert. I simply read a lot and try to to think logically based on my science background.

The U.K. is focussed on the Block IV update to the F35, which will include integration of weapons favoured by the U.K. (The F35 programme is in a state of continuous evolution and development to try and avoid past issues of aircraft being technologically outdated at their introduction due to their long development cycles.)
When Block IV becomes available, the U.K. will have to pay for both hardware and software upgrades to existing aircraft.
So as a money-saving measure, the U.K. is waiting for F35s that come off the production line as Block IVs. It should also been borne in mind that year on year production costs for the F35 have been falling, so buying later has cost less than buying early: though this may have ended due to current inflation issues.

In contrast, Australia has since WW2 favoured American weapons and munitions. This can be best seen with its equipment choices for its version of the T26 compared to the original RN version. So no need for them to wait for Block IV as they’ll be using munitions that are already integrated with the F35.

There’s 4 variants of the F35:
• F35A – traditional airfield based version

• F35B – STOVL, think of a supersonic stealthy Harrier, uses a RR lift-fan

• F35C – carrier based version with strengthening for catapult launches and trap landings (USN only)

• F35I – Israeli customisation of F35A specification to include own systems and software (Israel only)

Many thanks for the comprehensive reply Sean much appreciated
Cheers
George

Hi George, although Sean isn’t an expert he is very competent and says some very good things. Unless you want info about things such as the operation of the army, in which case you should ask someone who served in the military such as gunbuster, there are a lot of well-informed people whom you can listen to in here. If there’s an argument, use some common sense and you’ll be able to discern which side is right and wrong.

Gunbuster was a skimmer, not Army.

According to Rumour Control, he marches funny as well…

Didn’t say he was Army; said military.

Thanks, I try.
I hope I demonstrate how a non-expert with no military background, can still get a reasonable grasp of things through information that is in the public domain: in part through websites like this.

North Korea? Did you really say that! Ha ha haaaaaaa absolutely hilarious. And in that statement any credibility you may have had has just gone! North Korea…..brilliant!

Well they probably bought the totally radar transparent 5th gen fighter from Iran?

It is a conceptual leap forward.

The Iranians realised that if you made a plane out of cardboard it would be totally radar transparent. Similarly omitting the engines, wing box and spar reduced RCS.

In a further technological leap regarding the cockpit, the Iranians realised that fitting the pilot in with the canopy shut wasn’t necessary either.

But the finest innovation was the positioning of the control console, artfully redeveloped from a cutting edge arcade game complete with Z80 processor, in such a way that it would take the pilots knees off if they needed to eject. Clearly this is easier with the canopy open anyway.

Ah memory serves me well, a few years back they showed their “new” advanced fighter off to the world! It was a fucking model mocked up!!! But clearly you have some insider knowledge of Irans capabilities 😂👍

There’s a couple videos of it being towed around. You can actually see it flexing under tow. I am surprised they didn’t just use their F5s as a donar, but the model is much smaller.

Yes I said North Korea… in relation to other posts, answers, questions etc, where the conversation had shifted to enemies… So with ‘hilarity’ in mind, North Korea is not an enemy?

You made a 3 post reply to yourself answering JamesD and mentioned platforms namely the Orc SU-57 zannusi special! So were you taking enemies or platforms? Actually both so please accept the fact you were picked up on the platforms comment and give the excuses a break. We all make mistakes, it’s how we ride our bang up that counts. Thanks.

Plonker!

Dickhead!

Tom, North Korea has 35 MiG-29’s, a 45 year old design, as their most advanced fighter. Their most common airframe is a derrivative of the MiG-21, a fighter from the 1950s.

I’m sure the RAF are shaking at the thought of taking on North Korea’s ancient 1960s-era air force.

North Korean MiG-21s will be just target practice.

Oh I said that did I? Good grief… 🙄

Yes you did by only regarding U.K. aircraft numbers and not those of our allies. And China is the only ‘enemy’ that has more 5th gen jets than us.

Not that I’m advocating it however if your talking just about defeating China in a war then the UK probably has the capability to do it now. Blockading the Indian Ocean from Diego Garcia and the pacific from the Falklands and Cayman Islands would cut China off from its overseas oil imports. The performance of China’s type 93 against CSG21 shows pretty clearly that China lacks the technology to go toe to toe with the UK outside of the South China Sea. The PLAN lacks the blue water naval capability to conduct an attack on a British base at distance. That’s won’t always be the case but it will for the next decade. No one on the planet has the sovereign bases capability of the UK. Choking off a fuel supply to a modern economy will win any war fairly quickly.

The two issues I would see are:
• Russia has lots of cheap oil to sell and a land border with China.
• The sheer numbers of tankers we’d have to intercept would exceed the RN’s fleet numbers, not to mention what to do with them once intercepted. (Assuming we detained them instead of sinking.)
• If we intercept tankers flagged to countries other than China, we risk serious fallout from getting them involved.
• China would reciprocate, they will cut off the huge amount of products, parts, etc that they supply to the U.K. market. While hopefully the military would not be impacted, industry and the domestic market would be greatly impacted.

Russia has the oil but it’s stuck in Russia. pipelines across Siberia are hard to make and will take a decade or more. Very limited ability to port anything to the pacific coast as well. Arctic coast is possible but could be intercepted by British subs working under the artic ice. The near threat of this would probably prevent it.

China can certainly cut the UK off from its supply of IPADs and other consumer electronic goods however most UK imports can or do come via Rotterdam first. It’s impossible to blockade the UK at a distance without blockading all of Europe. Our smaller size works in our favour.

Key thing China could try to blockade would be LNG from Qatar. However it’s well inside the UK ability to launch an invasion of Djibouti if China try’s to use it.

For most non Chinese tankers we would simply have to turn them back. This would cause significant diplomatic issues for sure however largely with third world countries serving as flags of convenience. Simply cancelling Lloyds insurance is enough to stop tankers from any western country assuming the UK had a just reason for war.

For Chinese ships captured their cargos become legitimate prizes of war. You take them to Diego Garcia or nearest British base put a prize crew and a few marines onboard them send it somewhere else to sell it. China would I stop sending ships pretty fast.

We use to be really good at this it’s how we build the biggest empire in history 😀

You can’t simply ‘cancel’ Lloyds insurance. It’s down to the individual underwriting agencies whether they want to write the risk or not. I worked in the Lloyds market and my former CEO made his fortune insuring tankers during the Iran Iraq War – business others turned down.
Now the government could ban Lloyds from insuring tankers, but they they’d just get insurance elsewhere and potentially cause permanent damage to the Lloyds market.

To blockade goods coming to the U.K., China wouldn’t have to send any PLAN ships to Rotterdam or anywhere else. They’d simply tell manufacturers in China to stop exporting to the U.K. So much of what we use/need is manufactured in China that our economy would start to unravel in weeks.

So we threaten middle-eastern tankers with being sunk unless they turn around? That’s not going to endear the middle-east to keep supplying oil or LNG to the U.K. It would also see the U.K. condemned at the UN and sanctions imposed against us.

As we have seen with Ukraine, a major war can have a far reaching global impact. A conflict between the U.K. and China, two far larger economies, would have far greater repercussions. You can be certain there would be even greater pressure brought to bare on both sides to end it.

We used to be good at this in the days when things were far simpler, before we became reliant on things that have global supply chains.
Back in the days of empire, everything we needed for a warship could be manufactured from raw materials in the U.K., not any more. When it comes to non-military, the situation is even worse, as the military actively tries to avoid dependence on Chinese made goods.
While the Empire fought a lot of wars, it was mainly built and retained through trade agreements, diplomacy, perfidious skulduggery and efficient administration, rather than big military invasions and occupation forces.

You don’t have to sink a tanker to turn it around especially when you have sea control and a near by base. You just land some marines onabord if it refuses to comply. Big issue would be if a Middle East country decided to escort the tanker out however then they are potentially declaring war on the UK.

Sure China can sanction the UK over parts it uses however this would require active participation from the European Union to impose second order sanctions on the UK. Again assuming the UK has some valid reason for this hypothetical war they are not going to do that. But the IPad supply would be damaged for sure.

The UK economy would take a hit for sure, however the question is going to be how long the UK economy can last without an easy supply of Chinese manufactured goods vs how long China can last with half its oil supply cut off. That’s how blockades work. That’s how we fought every major war for 300 years and it’s why we retained bases near every major choke point around the word. No one else has that.

As for Lloyds insurance, it can and is frequently canceled due to sanctions and there is almost no alternative. Russian ships headed with weapons for Syria have been turned back in the past because HMG removed Lloyds insurance and you can’t dock in most ports or transit most straights with out it.

Depending on the country you may be able to find an alternative but it’s difficult. Almost no western insurance company will touch anything with a ten foot pole these days if there is a whiff of sanctions much less if you end up facing criminal charges in the UK and are permanently cut off from London.

For sure this type of practice would damage Lloyd’s and London but then it would be a war between two nuclear armed major powers and this kind of damage would be minimal in comparison.

Britain’s sovereign basing capability around the world gives it an unrivalled ability to blockade anyone and it’s a capability that even the USA would find difficult to match. The USA has a lot of foreign bases but almost all are hosted not sovereign. This was there problem in the 80’s trying to bomb Libya.

Anyone able to blockade the straights of Malacca is able to defeat China in a war. China knows this and is spending billions to try and counter it.

So now we’re boarding hundreds of tankers in international waters. That would be classified as piracy and I doubt and the nearest safe base would be the U.K. because I doubt anyone else would want to get dragged into this mess.
Escorting your own flagged vessels is not a declaration of war. But us sinking or seizing another nation’s potentially is.

The EU wouldn’t need to sanction the U.K., China would simply need to ensure that there were no grey imports via third countries to the U.K. As it has more direct control and influence over domestic companies it will be able to do a far better job than the one we’re currently doing against grey imports to Russia.
No the EU wouldn’t need to put sanctions against us.

Yes if sanctions were applied by HMG then Lloyds (it dropped “of London” years ago) would have to withdraw cover and then tanker owners would have to go elsewhere for insurance. Lloyds doesn’t have a monopoly, and if all else fails the Chinese would provide insurance cover.

It’s not just manufactured goods that we depend on from China. Most rare-earth metal processing is done in China before it’s used in anything. Then there’s the foodstuffs we import from China, etc.
Things would get a lot more difficult in the U.K. long before it did it China.

The Malacca Straits simply provides access between Pacific and Indian Oceans. It’s not the only route between these oceans either, as it’s too shallow for many of the largest tankers these days.
China can trade with the North and South America across the Pacific and in the summer it can access Europe via the Arctic.
Too big an area for the RN to try and blockade on its own.

Thankfully a U.K. v China War is hypothetical, never going to happen as it’s in neither’s interest.

Sorry your not paying attention to oil where it is and how it flows. Cross pacific then it comes from Brazil and Venezuela. You can’t trade it across the pacific without going through the Panama Canal or around the bottom of South America and in both instances you need to go past a UK sovereign base.

All oil from Middle East on tankers transits Singapore.

As for grabbing a ship mid sea one man’s act of piracy is another’s sanction enforcement operation.

If you read about the blockades of the past you will see this issue was encountered several times before. With the exclusion of 1812 the UK was able to manage the diplomatic fall out.

Agin much would have to do with the international community’s response and justification for the UK entering a hypothetical war against China on its own.

Hard to see it happening but very difficult for China on its own to do anything about it. Sure if it can get others to fight the UK for it then it’s possible but China has close to zero Allie’s and non of them are useful in this instance.

As for escorts I just can’t see the Saudi’s being desperate enough to sell oil to China that they would send warships and be prepared to fire on UK forces. No one in the gulf has a naval capability able to win against a British fleet around Diego Garcia so they would be sending ships on a suicide mission in the hopes of what exactly? That the USA would come to their aid?

Canada, USA, Mexico, Columbia, Ecuador; all oil producing nations in the America’s that have Pacific coastlines and so don’t require transit.
As for oil that has to go via the Panama Canal, which ‘sovereign bases’ do you refer to that could interdict Venezuelan tankers? The likes of BATSUB isn’t going to be much use.

No international and maritime law doesn’t work that way. If we started stopping all manner of tankers because we suspected they might be going to China we’d soon find other nations intervening against us, and with good reason.

The likes of Saudi, Qatar, etc wouldn’t need to send naval forces to fight the RN. They’d simply stop selling oil and LNG to the U.K. and wait for us to back down.

Nobody is going to try and engage a British fleet, they don’t need to. Because 6 subs, 6 air-defence destroyers, and a dozen frigates can’t enforce a global blockade on their own.

The USA does not export crude to anyone it’s against the law. the only significant oil production and flow from the pacific side is Canada and I can’t imagine how we would get in to a shooting war and Canada was still pumping crude to China but it would be a limited amount and probably non due to UK financial sanctions. Some oil may go cross pacific but nothing on the level required to keep China going. No blockade is air tight it’s a case of applying steady economic pressure.

UK has sovereign territory in Cayman and BVI that is suitable to sustain what ever forces would be blockading the Panama Canal either air or sea.

The UK only buys LNG from Qatar and the UK and Qatar have incredibly deep economic and political ties
, far more than China. Qatar is no Allie to Saudi so not sure why you think Qatar would take action against us in favour of Saudi.

In a blockade any vessel can be used the term is “armed merchant cruiser” look it up. A OSV with a handful of marines and a helicopter can easily intercept a merchant vessels. We have operated armed merchant men as recently as 1999 with 30mm cannons onboard.

We have airbases easily in range of the three necessary chokepoints based on sovereign territory. So any force trying to overcome the blockade would have to get past our fleet which granted is small but is light years beyond anything China can field at a distance either under the sea or in the air. As well as have them overwhelm the RAF and British Army units defending the base and it would have to do this a distances so far away from friendly bases it makes Britains retaking of the Falklands look short range.

Do you think China currently has a fleet capable of capturing Diego Garcia with no Indian Ocean basing? Do you think China could launch and assault on the Falklands from bases in China? How would you see China capturing British bases in the Caribbean?

In a war China might try and bring in friendly support but if we can bring in allies then we get to bring in NATO.

I can’t imagine a circumstance where the UK would get in to a shooting war against China without the USA but if we did I am sure we could enforce a pretty devastating blockade. Sure the rest of the world would apply diplomatic pressure to stop it but then ultimately that’s what we would want of any war. A fair diplomatic settlement.

That’s weird because the US Gov itself reports that…
“U.S. motor gasoline exports increased by 11% (89,000 b/d) to reach a record of 910,000 b/d for the first half of 2022. U.S. jet fuel exports more than doubled in the first half 2022 compared with the same period last year.”
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=53999

We have British troops in Caymen and BVI, but not bases able to support military actions.

Mexico produces almost double the amount of oil as the U.K. does, and Columbia almost as much as the U.K.
Surprised you think that’s not “significant”…

Ah so we are sanctioning Canada as well as China in this war of yours, any of our other allies you think we should get in the wrong side of…

Don’t misrepresent my post. I didn’t say that Qatar would support Saudi. I just named them as 2 countries which do business with China who could make life extremely difficult if we started acting as pirates seizing their tankers. Such action would destroy any historical or diplomatic ties and be regarded as imperialistic.

China wouldn’t even bother trying to capture Diego Garcia, or anywhere else, it doesn’t need to. The RN restricting freedom of navigation in any of these choke points would cause international uproar and push neutral countries into China’s camp.
Meanwhile the PLAN would focus on escort duties, I dread to think what they’d do to one one your “armed merchant cruisers”, HMS Jervis Bay springs to mind…

No we can’t bring in NATO on a whim. There are conditions to NATO involvement. And of course you’ve already hacked off Canada with financial sanctions so good luck there…

In a one on one shooting war with China, neither side would be able to deliver a knockout blow. But ultimately the U.K. would be forced to back down and come to the negotiating table as attrition and world opinion would be against us.

The US can export distillates, Current crude exports ban was suspended in 2015 but it is on the verge of returning and in the event of a war would be back very fast. Any airport sea port is a military base in waiting. Mexico and Columbia produce oil but not on the pacific it’s all in the gulf and Caribbean side and most of the pipelines point that way not the Pacific way. The UK does not have to sanction Canada or any other country it would sanction the companies of that country.

As I have said international pressure on the UK for diverting crude shipments to China (nothing else) would very much depend on the reason the UK went to war with China solo. The only thing I could possibly think of would be the CCP committing mass genocide in Hong Kong or an attack on Brunei killing much of the British Garrison. In which case the balance of international opinion would be in favour of the UK position.

Even in those circumstances I can’t image the US Australia and Canada would not be supporting us.

So why import crude and then have to refine it yourself when you can import the specific petroleum products you need. Fighter they’d use aviation fuel not crude, vehicles run on petrol/diesel not crude. So long as the end product gets through the effect is the same.

The ridiculous scenario being discussed is Tom’s U.K. v China alone, with no allies. Don’t try changing the parameters. However I would point out we were in the right 40 years ago but there were no Canadian, American or Australian naval vessels in the Task Force to liberate the Falkands. The support we got militarily was similar to, but in a lessor scale, to what Ukraine has received.

You can try to make any seaport or airport into a base, assuming the actual owners don’t object. But how effective they are is a totally different matter. Choose an unsuitable one and it can become a death trap for your forces.

Sanctions imposed by a single country on a company in another country has very little effect. Plenty of other countries to trade with not to mention the domestic market. Unless the majority of your sales are with the sanctioning country the net effect is negligible. Which is why international sanctions need to be backed by a large number of countries to be effective. (Unless it’s the USA due to its economic clout.)

I can’t envisage ANY reason why the U.K. would go to war with China alone, not even the ones you suggest.
We might go to war in defence of Taiwan from a Chinese invasion, but the USA would be leading that fight and there’d be other nations aboard too.

China now gets a lot of its Gas and Oil via land based pipelines direct from Siberia and also since Feb 2022 (spookily) via Kazakhstans pipeline.
Which in reality means they are several hundred miles from the Sea and completely in their sovereign territories.

So nothing short of all out war will damage them.

There is a land border between Russia and China and Oil terminals in Siberia so Tankers can go the short route around Korea. The only sea choke point between Siberia and China is between the Sea of Japan and Yellow Sea in other words Chinas back yard.

And just just bear in mind neither Russia or China will just sit back and not retaliate, which is where we are distinctly at a disadvantage.

All of our Oil and Gas has to come either by Sea or via under Sea Pipelines all of which are vulnerable.
Their pipelines are land locked deep within their territories and nearly invulnerable to any non strategic attack.

So the only bit of your post I agree with is the last sentence, unfortunately it also applies to us. And bearing in mind Nordstream and what is happening in Ukraine, they know it as well.

It gets a lot but not enough. It’s limited in how much it can or will get from pipelines as well because they are not as daft as the Germans. They are not going to rely on a single sourced supplier and you can’t just build multi billion dollar pipelines in case you need them. Most crude leaving the gulf is headed for China. I have a house on the straights of Singapore you can sit and watch it go by it’s a vast amount with super tankers passing every few minutes.

Anything coming from across the pacific has to pas British bases in the FI and Caribbean.

Blockades take time to have effect. Look at 1914 and 1939. Germany was not crippled straight away but after a few years it was running out of food to feed its people.

It took longer against napoleon but it was still highly effective in bankrupting France. Under both Napoleon and Hitler the British blockade was the main reason for the invasion of Russia.

You don’t have to invade a nations capital to win a war just employ enough economic pressure until they either surrender or half their people die from starvation.

So, the UK via the Royal Navy are NOT extending its interests to the far East, and Pacific then? Oh right, so what news channel do you subscribe to? Another stoopid post… God give me strength

Tom given tripe you’ve posted here, you honestly don’t have a leg to stand on calling other posters stupid.

SU57s- do me a favour- they are overhyped junk. If they were any good Putin would have used them in Ukraine by now- instead his forces are getting spanked and all this is being done by Ukraine using NATO’s surplus and 2nd tier equipment donated. The Russian’s aren’t even facing our best kit and are getting thoroughly beaten.
In Topgun Maverick destroyed 2 SU57 Falons in an old F14 Tomcat- so they cant be that good can they?

Isn’t it more relevant to count NATO 5th gen jets anyway?

Or if it is China US + UK + AUS + JPN?

It is more relevant to count NATO 5th gen totals, but Tom is obsessing over U.K. numbers alone 🤷🏻‍♂️

Talking shite, taken to task? Misdirection? You seem to be a lot ‘angrier’ than I, in your ramblings about… I have no idea. Whatever ‘chuffing’ comment I made much earlier in this ‘thread’, changed direction a few times since then. So, to be honest, I’m pretty lost as to what your point is.

Taking shite? Please re-read my post and locate that terminology? Anyway take it on the chin without getting defensive, you didn’t quite understand the many responses and changed your tact and time to cover the fact! Don’t worry, I’m not concerned, neither is anyone else! But the North Korea comment…..wow!

Got me fingers crossed 🙂

Cheers CR

👍👍

Jim,

Firstly, yes I saw that WarZone article from a few years back, but as usual, there is no ‘official’ announcement as to cost, lots of numbers get thrown around, not many official facts though.

No you didn’t specifically say the RAAF would junk any F-35A aircraft, but you did say the USA would be junking it’s older ones.

Yes some of the very early LRIP lots, are probably not worth going through multiple upgrades to get to the current standard. Some I believe have gone to aggressor squadrons?

The first few F-35A for the RAAF were from an early production lot, LRIP 6, either to Block 2B or 3i standard, can’t remember which exactly.

But later on they were, at depot level maintenance, upgraded to Block 3F, the current standard.

As to what LM will or won’t support in the future, that’s not unusual today, look at just about everything today driven by computers and software, if you don’t upgrade, you get left behind.

That’s up to the user to keep moving forward or stand still and get left behind.

As for the UK Apache, my understanding was that they were a ‘unique’ orphan configuration from the start, and of course the UK didn’t keep its E-3 fleet updated too.

In the past here in Oz the RAAF had lots of ‘unique’ configurations, and that became very costly, when the F-111C fleet was replaced by F/A-18F, the RAAF was very clear that they would stay in ‘lock step’ with the USN configuration, and they have, our fleet gets the same upgrades.

Today, pretty much across the board with all the USAF and USN aircraft in RAAF, RAN and Army service, we are ensuring we keep to the same current standard, and same weapons fit too.

I think people get a bit bogged down over Block 4, yes it’s the big one, but there will also be future upgrades, Block 5, 6, etc over the next 30 years or so.

And again, this is not unique to the F-35 either.

Cheers,

I’m hoping they leave room in tempest so they can develop a carrier capable variant in the future. Much like Rafael. I can see Japan one day being interested and us covering QE class in future to CATOBAR.

Hopefully it becomes that the parts are plug and play systems and they can be added or taken out of any airframe easily.
So if a carrier plane is needed, the airframe is made and like building a pc u put what’s needed in and it starts and runs. Obviously it’s a bit more complicated than a pc but same kind of principle.

I’m kind of hoping it’s like an F4 Phantom or F18. The Typhoon was almost specifically design to not be carrier capable from day one with its configuration and Low clearance.

Yes Boeing does have its moments, eg, KC-46A and 737 MAX.

But not all is crap, eg, C-17A, F/A-18F, EA-18G, P-8A.

As for the MQ-28A Ghost Bat, it’s very much an ‘in country’ development program.

Boeing Defence Australia (Boeing’s largest operation outside the US), BAE Systems Australia, and another approx 30 Australian based companies.

One of the benefits of local development is that Ghost Bat will be outside of US ITAR technology restrictions, eg, we won’t need permission to sell to other global customers.

As to the RAAF today, just about every aircraft type has, or is in the process of, being replaced, not many ‘old’ aircraft are left in service.

Mate,

The last of the 71 remaining Classic Hornets (F/A-18A/B) were retired end of last year. (We sold 25 to Canada).

And yes all RAAF F-35A will be upgraded to Block 4 (the fleet is all to the current Block 3F standard).

And yes we have separate Super Hornet and Growler fleets, originally there was a plan to modify 12 of the 24 Supers to Growler, but 12 new Growlers were procured instead.

And no there aren’t any single seat E model, Super and Growler are based on two seat F model.

Cheers,

It’s better than nothing and more than I expected, if accurate.

As much as i’d like to see numbers like that retained, arguably you don’t need to replace like for like. The capability difference could make up for the numerical difference.

Does it actually, though?

Can it lift so much more than a C-130J Hercules that we need fewer of them, or will their availability be so much better that fewer A-400M can do the work the Hercs did before?

Does fewer airframes increase or reduce our airlift capability? I’m inclined to say the latter.

The A400 is an impressive machine with twice the max take off weight of the C-130J and can carry that load faster.

It isn’t perfect but, for most of the roles that it would be required to fill, it will do the job.

Don’t get me wrong, I’d rather we kept the Herc even if only for para drops and SF insertion and remove it from the cargo hauling roll completely.

The issue is more that the A400M is larger and louder so not as much good for SF who presumably have to go to use lighter civvy types for the covert insertions?

Maybe something like the C-27J could be used for SF work?

I don’t know if either of the aircraft could be described as quiet.
I’ve heard a Hercules flying over but have not had the pleasure of an A400.
Maybe a special forces electric plane will be the future. Or gravity suits.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1690853/Ben-Wallace-UK-F35-RAF-Ministry-of-Defence-Sir-Mike-Wigston-Royal-Navy-ont/amp

👍👍I would not want to be Wigston. Hawk is not in his control but the problems were there long before.

You’re not wrong there. I was still working in Farnborough when a some of the guys with contacts in MoD HQ started talking about a panic that had just broken out. Someone had noticed that they (corporately) had forgotten that the Hawk T1 was coming to the end of its airframe life! I kid you not…

This was about 15 years ago!

Cheers CR

Haha. Anyone would think the people in charge should know how aircraft work.

thanks for sharing the link Rob.

Yes, that is certainly the case according to every British aerospace company I can access. Also some very interesting feed back coming from neurobiologist. It seems they are spreading the love, read research grants. Far and wide.

Unfortunately I can’t see it being that simple- unless all the enemies of the UK take it in turns of course..There is a capabilty gap that only numbers will plug… There’s also the ongoing wait for Block iv to ‘allow’ us to integrate our own weapons…whats the timescales for that now?

But as the war in Ukraine has demonstrated. Enemies of the UK are also NATO Enemies. Highly unlikely we will be going it alone with high end warfare. Block 4 is 2027 timeframe, maybe longer. But as everyone really likes to moan about this timeframe, remember Typhoon had been in service for over 15 years before it received StormShadow and Brimstone integration at a cost of over £425M for the centurion upgrade.

I agree it’s unlikely we’ll be going at it alone, but even so we need to be able to do our part and provide more than a token force.

I think global operations over the last 30 years have shown we always provide more than a token force, and operate at a level only 2nd to the US compared to the rest of NATO.

Oh, definitely. I fully agree with you there.

My worry is that with the level of cuts we’ve had, especially in the last 10-12 years, that we would be reduced to a token force.

Could we realistically deploy more than a single squadron of Typhoons, for instance, to contribute towards a conflict?

Yes, definitely , we already have a sqn of Typhoons deployed operating from Cyprus, and still cover Op Shader over Iraq/Syria. Typhoons are deployed in Eastern Europe, and fly sorties from the UK. Plus a full round of exercises are still being attended plus manning of QRA North and South plus the Falklands.

Look at Ukraine and Poland… And things look a little scarce in the UK. And the tiny little Air Force isn’t really helping. And the less said about the army the better.

That is frankly, a pathetic reply.

Oh dear, the Brit Squaddies socks in your laundry is still causing you mental issues!

But as the war in Ukraine has demonstrated. Enemies of the UK are also NATO Enemies. Highly unlikely we will be going it alone with high end warfare. Block 4 is 2027 timeframe, maybe longer. But as everyone really likes to moan about this timeframe, remember Typhoon had been in service for over 15 years before it received StormShadow and Brimstone integration at a cost of over £425M for the centurion upgrade

2029 with development costs now estimated to be $15.14B according to a recent GAO report. I’ve put a link to a Breaking Defence article above.

Cheers CR

Well said grizzler. Even normal battle losses would be a serious blow to our small force, deficient in reserves. No amount of flexibility can have an aeroplane in two places at the same time. It is a weakness that any serious enemy would be stupid not to exploit.

We have been lulled into a false sense of security over decades. By only needing to deal with one small poorly equipped enemy at a time. When the WWII model is far more likely as the next big conflict. With numerous foes on multiple continents and oceans simultaneously.

The big threat as I see it, is an enemy alliance of the ChiComs, Russia, Iran and anyone they can muster to join in. Let’s say North Kora, Yemen and Argentina. After the latter receives considerable military assistance from CCP China. That is the war I think we should be planning to fight. With the added buggerance of some of our “allies,” persuaded not to take part.

They’re already a defacto alliance and what can they actually muster? China is the only one with any real capability and the one with the most to lose. Economics aside apart from China the others pose no real existential military threat unless they’d like to initiate WWIII in which case conventional capability will not matter.

You are thinking traditionally James. Fear of WWIII limits the actions of NATO and our democratic allies more than members of the “de facto alliance.” If they were to limit their offensive activities to none nuclear weapons, while staying out of full NATO member states. Would we escalate to nukes over the loss of Taiwan, Falkland Islands, Ukraine, various territories in Asia and the the Middle East. The military minded on this site probably would say yes but the average woke PFC would almost certainly say no.

CCP are producing armaments at what we would consider wartime rates with no sign of slowing down. Each generation of weapons improving on the last, the technology gap is rapidly diminishing (except submarine tech). Cooperative access to Russian technology can only accelerate this trend.
Russia tech is no match for the west but they do have many things China would want. The Armata knowhow, Russian jet engines, submarine and stealth aircraft designs for example. Top of the list, China craves natural resources and Russia has them in abundance. Giving the ability to rearm it’s allies very quickly.

Are they close to thinking the timing is right to achieve their well publicised 2050 goals. Can we afford to sit back and ignore this potential. When peace by superior firepower is the only thing that will keep us safe in the future. As it did during the Cold War.

US taxpayers are paying their own jobs.

US money for Israel is for Israel to buy US weapons sometimes at expense of Israeli workers for example in small weapons.

US got a lot from Israel intel in Cold War and still get because of their tech. There is a reason that M1 tanks were the first outside Israel to get Trophy APS.

howdy DM, thanks for the ping Mate. Glad you’re still watching, the piece,It gets a little more interesting towards the end!

The OECD rates the NHS as the second most efficient health system in the world. How much more efficient do you think it can be?

I work for the nhs. It could get much more efficient. Between various departments/ agencies the NHS could cut 50,000 non clinical administrative posts and save around £3 billion a year without affecting frontline care provision. Hunt is actually right about that.

I worked for the NHS for 5 years, sure it can get more efficient any system can but when you are already one of the most highly rated services for efficiency in the world it is unlikely you will find much. Cut your 50,000 administrators and save £3 billion a year and you managed to save less than 2% of your budget. Not even one years inflation costs. Now what are you going to cut next year?

At some point you get diseconomies of scale on cuts I.e it cost more to find the cuts than you save. It’s the kind of naive talk that people like Jeremy Hunt come out with constantly because he ran a small business.

It’s pretty different when you have 1.3 million staff.

The way to help the NHS is to reduce the load placed upon it by reducing the weight, improving the diet, housing and family circumstances of the large number of its customers who are the drivers of the need for its services.

The thing is Mr Bell “efficient” compared to what? All large organisations are inefficient and the British tend to naval gaze and assume our NHS/MOD is less efficient than everyone else’s. Unfortunately for the doomsters, this doesn’t stake up in reality, but nobody wants to hear that, certainly not the media or commentators on this forum. They want to hear DOOM! Cheers.

How much more efficient than second place? Let me guess. It’s not fourth place, is it?

what’s that got to do with it ? Don’t deflect one shit show with another.

Given China’s indebtedness that is THE big worry for the global economy.

We shoudln’t have got rid of everything to China then should we – chasing cheap mobiles and laptops.

Cheap everything you mean 🤷🏻‍♂️

And if one company does it then it’s competitors have to do it, or go bust…

Would a carbon tax force more manufacturing back to the UK. Is the import of resources and manufacture of things near where it is spent better from a CO2 perspective than manufacturing in China and then shipping to UK?

There should be a carbon tax for the fuel required in shipping raw materials and finished goods around the world. It would stop first world nations claiming to have reduced their carbon footprint by simply offshoring manufacturing (and this CO2production) to a third world nation. However this really needs to be done globally at a COP summit.

For sure, it’s their real weapon.

That’s not being entirely fair to the F35 Jim. A secondary platform! It’s actually the UKs primary Strike Aircraft, for both the RN and RAF, as it is replacing both RN Harriers and RAF Tornadoes. It will be used as required, generally dictated by the operational necessity. IE do we need it at sea or on land. Personally with such relatively small numbers <74 I can see us getting into a pickle at some point….

Both the South Korean and Japanese Air forces are far more powerful than the RAF is.. and getting larger.

So what?

Wow. Some post Nigel. I’ve read bits myself about delays and so on but the problems in service and the process of sorting them out is worrying to say the least. I really don’t know where this leaves us. Do we carry on or delay as has been suggested for Block 4 and risk delays and a leap in costs? We could be talking ten years. I’ll read the full article.

Delay, clearly we still do not know if it will be fit for purpose until the arrival of the F-35 simulator which will determine its performance and reliability as I posted above.

Would you continue to purchase a fleet of new cars for your business if you were aware of performance issues and reliability? or take a chance because you think all will end well and you require them now?

A tricky one to say the least!

A breakdown by Year development of the development costs is worth noting from page 45/48 as well to get an idea.

“As of December 2021, the F-35 program had 826 open deficiencies, which is slightly lower than the 872 we reported in March 2021.

1 Deficiencies represent specific instances where the weapon system either does not meet requirements or where the safety, suitability, or effectiveness of the weapon system could be affected.

The test officials categorize deficiencies according to their potential effect on the aircraft’s performance. • Category 1 deficiencies are critical and could jeopardize safety, security, or another requirement.

• Category 2 deficiencies are those that could impede or constrain successful mission accomplishment. In June 2018, we recommended that the program office resolve all critical deficiencies before making a full-rate production decision, in part, to reduce the potential for additional concurrency costs stemming from continuing to produce aircraft before testing is complete.

2 DOD concurred with our recommendation and stated that the resolution of critical deficiencies identified during testing would be addressed prior to the full-rate production decision.

3 As of December 2021, of the 826 open deficiencies, the program office characterized four as category 1 and 822 as category 2.

This represents seven fewer open category 1 deficiencies than we reported in March 2021.

According to program officials, initial fixes for all four category 1 deficiencies have been implemented and are awaiting verification. Specifically, two fixes are expected to be verified through testing in the first half of 2022.

One other is expected to be closed in the middle of 2022. The final category 1 deficiency is under investigation and is expected to require technology development to resolve.

According to program officials, the program office does not plan to resolve all of the category 2 deficiencies because the program office, in consultation with the warfighters and contractors, have determined that they do not need resolution.

Figure 13 shows the total number of category 1 and 2 deficiencies that the program has closed since testing began in December 2006 and the number of deficiencies that remain open as of December 2021.”

https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-22-105128.pdf

Sorry Jeoff, I should have mentioned it!

“Before the F-35 can be declared ready for full-rate production, it must complete tests in the Pentagon’s Joint Simulation Environment.”

https://breakingdefense.com/2021/12/new-schedule-for-critical-f-35-simulation-tests-coming-in-early-2022/

June 17, 2022 at 3:15 PM

F-35 full-rate production decision expected by March 2024 under updated APB
“The F-35 program is poised to reach its long-delayed, full-rate production decision by March 2024 under an updated acquisition program baseline that recently won approval, a Pentagon spokeswoman told Inside Defense.

Previously slated for March 2021, the new timeline for FRP comes after the Defense Department’s acquisition chief signed off on the APB last month, spokeswoman Jessica Maxwell wrote in an email this week. The latest schedule, she noted, “has an updated milestone C and full rate production…”

interesting piece Nigel. think you for posting

Mission system simulators are in service at RAF Marham.

👍

Look it up, I believe the last report in droneWars said about 50% CAS was carried out by drones. That’s just how it is, and the future is more. Your light turboprop is the past I’m afraid.

Light turboprop? I was thinking of fast jets such as F-35s and Typhoons, which can conduct CAS missions and carry a huge weapon/ammo load.

You’ve lost me there, we already have F-35s and Typhoon’s and UAV, that’s what we use for CAS now. All of these carry “huge” weapons load.

I think thats what I said. I just didn’t claim we used light turboprops for CAS, as I knew that we used F-35s, Typhoons (as well as Apache) for CAS.

Lockheed is building them fast enough old bean. RAF not buying them quick enough is the issue. Do keep up.

Thing is there is the farcical issue of block 4, we could buy more now but they’d be limited in capability.

If block 4 was rolling out now I’d be all for rapidly building up numbers.

What we don’t need is a large expensive fleet that’s fitted for but not with most of what we need to be fitted. Then we pay through the nose again to upgrade them.

The whole programme is a shit show. It might result in a fantastically capable aircraft but waiting 10 bloody years from introduction to reaching that is a disgrace.