The Royal Air Force has announced the arrival of two new F-35B Lightning jets at RAF Marham.
According to the RAF, the aircraft made the long journey from Lockheed Martin’s facility in Fort Worth, Texas, supported by an RAF Brize Norton Voyager. The new arrivals highlight the UK’s continued commitment to expanding its cutting-edge combat capabilities.
The RAF stated on social media: “After a long journey from @LockheedMartin in Fort Worth Texas, two new F-35B Lightning jets have arrived @RAF_Marham. Supported by an @RAFBrizeNorton Voyager, they represent the UK’s ongoing effort to maintain advanced air power and an important step in the F-35 program.”
These new additions mark a significant enhancement to the UK’s carrier strike capabilities, with the F-35B playing a central role aboard the Royal Navy’s Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers. The jets will further bolster the UK’s ability to project air power and maintain air superiority as part of the ongoing modernisation of the RAF’s fighter fleet.
There is an expectation that all of the 47 in the first batch will be delivered by the end of 2025. Note that it would have been 48 if one didn’t crash.
After that, the Ministry of Defence expressed the intention to purchase another tranche of jets. Funding has been delegated for an additional tranche of F-35B jets for Britain beyond the 48 already ordered.
How many are expected?
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.”
May as well skip Marham and head straight for their sisters in the Med
I’ve been told on here that they need to go through a series of checks before they are accepted, and that a proportion of those checks happen after they reach the UK. I don’t know how long on average it takes before they are made available to a unit but it’s not immediate.
Minimum number must be at least 100.
So when we remove the 3 oranges for the test and evaluation squadron, you have 44..2 squadrons of 12 and a OCU of 12 is 36 then you need 20% for the sustainment fleet so 8 that takes it to 44…clever stuff. What have always found interesting is that they expect to order another 26… but a further squadron would only need 12 +20% sustainment so 14-15 aircraft, so I have never understood the extra 26..it makes no sense as it’s way more than you need to stand up an extra squadron, but not enough to stand up 2 squadrons ( you would need 30 for that).
So for some reason the RAF are looking for a far bigger percentage sustainment fleet for the F35..24 sustainment fleet for 3 front line squadrons, compared to typhoon which will be running 6 squadrons with a none existent sustainment fleet of around 9-10 aircraft. the tranche 2-3 only consists of 96 fighters.. 6 squadrons + OCU + Falklands flight + test and evaluation totals about 86-88 deployed aircraft..
That’s some odd maths for some reason.
might that extra 26 be partially for attrition? Undoubtably some will be lost over a 40+ years ops lifetime.
Howsit Klonkie!!
For some reason the figure 96 repeatedly crops up in these discussions, but I believe the correct figure is 107 tranche 2 & 3.
I’ve read on more than one occasion that the aspiration is for the F35B squadrons to be larger than 12 aircraft (16?), but that could be a false rumour.
96 single seat. 11 twin seat. Typhoon and the F35 fleets are pooled. So aircraft are moved around the squadrons depending on operational need.
96 front line fighters and 11 trainers, so you cannot count the trainers in front line squadrons numbers and the OCU has always had a full set of single seat front line fighters as well as around 5-6 two seater trainers.. generally the rest of the 2 seaters would have been scattered around the front line squadrons.. if you look at the FOI that included a record of where each airframe was..the frontline squadrons all had 12 single seat front line fighters and 1-2 two seaters and the OCU had 12 single seat fighters and 6 trainers.
I wonder if jets have that new car smell?
Initially yes but I have heard a rumour that the United States has installed a secret switch that changes the smell from “new car” to “rotten cabbage” if they are unhappy with the buyer.
Or perhaps, if cars have a new Jet smell?
I’m hoping that additional 27 will be upped to a much more realistic 36. That way two more squadrons can be generated.
A total fleet of 85 is a much more realistic requirement to face current threats.
Hopefully SDSR will deliver those numbers required.
Realistically what current threat are you seeing?
Russian air force has proven to be completely ineffective and kept at bay by a few dozen Ukraine jets and they share a land border. Ok it will rebuild once the Ukraine war ends and learn lessons but that will take decades, as they would need to redesign their fighters for offensive operations which they have proven to be useless at.
Argentina is no longer capable to retaking the Falklands
Rest of the empire is gone.
If we have to go against china we will be a minor partner, as US and local nations will provide enough fighters.
Not saying there couldn’t be future threats we aren’t today seeing but I can’t see any realistic current ones.
My view is that the F35B is a multi role platform not intended for just the air to air mission.
The UK definitely shouldn’t ink any contract for any more unless LM guarantee the full integration of UK advanced armaments such as storm shadow, Spear 3, LMM, ideally air launched NSM will be purchased for the anti shipping role.
Other missions F35B can perform are air defence suppression, C3 sites, airfields/ ports and critical infrastructure such as power plants, relay stations, bridges, rail networks etc
An additional 36 are crucial to ensure adequate numbers of platforms and crucially the ability to deploy both carriers if needed.
I would say the major threat comes from Russian A2/AD assets in support of their ground forces.
The Russian airforce is a joke but if not properly dealt with their ground based air defence can be formidable. They rely on this to support their slow moving artillery heavy ground forces which would otherwise wise be wiped out by our Air Force.
The F35 is tailor made to over come this threat but with the US potentially pulling out of NATO the UK may need to provide the bulk of the SEAD/DEAD capability in any operation in Northern Europe. Given our access to code as a tier 1 partner UK F35’s may be the only ones available in a European war.
A force of 80-100 F35’s is probably sufficient for the entire task.
Jim as I understand it the UK does not have access to the code and any benefits from tier1 expired when the F-35 came out of initial low rate production.
That’s not was the government says. It’s not really a code issue but mission data file issue which we can control but no one else other than Israel can.
And yet, countries around the world are arming.
Why should we be different?
Why did Brazil want an amphibious capability?
Who are they going to use them against?
You have a military that is ready, and able, as you never know.
Just like insurance.
Don’t forget it’s beyond that Daniele, most people get the insurance, but it sells the requirement well short, as insurance is a passive way of managing a risk insurance does not prevent the thing from happening. The core and major reason for a strong armed forces it’s that it’s not just insurance but it massively reduces the risk of armed conflict via deterrent and the 3c of deterrent. A good deterrent may cost you 3%-4% of GDP that’s expensive but a major existential war will cost you 30% of your GDP and shatter your economy for decades, and that’s if you win.
Very true J.
I don’t think Starner got the message, no more than any of them since Thatcher.
Any major conflict with Russia that does not include a major contribution from the U.S. will require the RN to lead the destruction of the Russian Barents and Kara sea bastion and the only way to do that is to ensure air superiority in the high north and for that you need carrier based aviation.
The Russians can throw a couple of squadrons of navel strike aircraft + support, so the RN needs to be able to dominate that.. 3 squadrons of f35B on a carrier would allow complete air superiority in the seas of the high north the RN and friends were concentrating on, this would allow the destruction of the bastions and the destruction of the northern fleet and long range strike capabilities thereby ending the threat to the Uk ( always fight your war in the other sides turf goes a long way to winning) .
For air superiority you also need a credible and robust AEW capability, which does not exist with the Crowsnest radar.
One thing people often forget is the RAFs AEW capability is a strategic asset. It can stay airborne for a very very long time and has a very long range. Essentially the high north can be covered by and supported by land based AEW, this would always be preferred if possible as the large land based platforms are simple better than any carrier based platforms.. the carrier is the base for the tactical assets, the fighters.
The UK are set to buy 3, possible 5, Wedgetails. One of which will probably be unavailable do to maintenance and repair. The North Atlantic is a very large area to cover.
At the same time, the F-35B has a pretty short range on internal fuel, so without external fuel tanks or organic tanking, they won’t be able to cover much ground.
Also, I wouldn’t discount the E-2 Hawkeye with its ability to scan thousands of square miles so easily. Land-based based aircraft might not always be available when you need them.
Russia is regenerating and learning fast. They’ll be a major threat in 3-5 years time
They won’t be. They can’t afford the military numbers they currently have and their economy is falling apart. The war can’t be maintained indefinitely and when it ends they are going to have hundreds of thousands of unemployed people as the country stops being on a war fitting, hitting the economy further. It’s going to take a long time for Russia to recover from this war.
Not to mention their air force hasn’t shown any signs of improving. They only use it when Ukraine runs short on anti air missiles and the momnent Ukraine gets more they shot down multiple planes and Russia stops using their air force again.
“Note that it would have been 48 if one didn’t crash”
The US Navy has just lost two F/A-18F Super Hornets overboard from the USS Harry S. Truman. It happens. Get over it and move on
O/T but I think I heard one of the US team at the announcement of the UK-US trade deal say that the UK were planning to spend $millions on Boeing airplanes. Anyone else hear that?
Yep, but don’t get your hopes up, it’s British Airways
🤣😂🤣😂🤣🤣🤣 hillarious. Probably right.
Hopefully more Poseidon and Wedgetails about to be ordered then. That’ll be good.
We don’t need an army centric defence posture. The Europeans can handle Mad Vlad orc hordes. We need a strong Navy and strong RAF as the foundations of our armed forces as well as an integrated multi layered air defence network for defence of UK mainland and key defence and national infrastructure sites.
Agreed, but we do need an army that can turn up and meaningful contribute because in the end from a deterrent point of view battle groups on the ground do matter as they evidenced skin in the game and provides a communication of credibility beyond sending a few aircraft, that can be somewhere else very quickly. So those battle groups actually communicate very heavily, where as the RAF sitting back in it’s nice distance airfields show capability, they don’t communicate credibility of intent in the same way.. it’s the same with surface groups vs SSNs.. SSNs are a profoundly good capability but they are rubbish at communicating intent..a CBG in the high north a a very focused communication of credibility and capability.
Just being really really powerful is unfortunately never enough you need the 3 cs of deterrent capability , credibility and communication to be an effective deterrent, which is why we need a decent army and the carrier battle groups.they are essentially the The f35 is a strike aircraft, its very purpose is to attack targets and yes sailing a carrier battle group around the world is one of the things that very much does make you a global power, the very nature of the act proves that…your essentially say just because a car drives at 70mph down a motorway does not mean it’s a car that can drive at 70mph of credibility element of the deterrent.. the aircraft, SSNs, cruise missiles etc are all about having capability.
32 B787-10 to replace B-777-200? Just as the 787 has a front bulkhead issue show up.
Billions by a British airline 🤦🏻♂️
I think they came via the Southern route. I spotted a voyager around the Azores on two separate days.
Jim as I understand it the UK does not have access to the code and any benefits from tier1 expired when the F-35 came out of initial low rate production.
Shame they dont work as advertised