Britain clears funding for additional tranche of F-35 jets

We’ve got 4 aircraft pre Lot 8. The 3 ITF test aircraft and BK-03. The test aircraft isn’t a massive deal. Dependent on the cost it might just be a good idea to move BK-03 to the test fleet, use it as a stealthy aggressor and use the money needed to upgrade to purchase half of a new one.

Yeah! Bring back Tornadoes, Phantoms & Buccaneers. Hunters & Vampires too, with a side order of Sea Harriers.
Ah, nostalgia ain’t what it used to be.

If it were up to me I’d increase to 12 squadrons total; either 8x Typhoon and 4x F35, or 7x Typhoon and 5x F35.

I think getting in more Typhoons would be quicker, plus a boost to our own industry.

The treasury seems to be sleepwalking through this, though.

👍

Hi Jonathan, whether we go for an all F35B fleet or mix of As and Bs, in my mind equal priority also needs to be given to the Mosquito/LANCA/Vixen concept. I see this as important as any additional Typhoon/F35 buy, welcome though the latter would be I’m sure. The Vixen et al concept won’t just enhance the capabilities of the F35B fleet (Air-to-Air refuelling and Loyal Wingman) but has the potential to give the fleet a step-change over it’s current Crowsnest capability, so, whilst it brings another aircraft type onto the carriers (with associated logistic challenges), and the problem of integrating a cats-and-traps system it has the potential to be a genuine force multiplier. Let’s hope suppliers and MOD find a solution to this concept soon.

Not really. See my post above and follow the links.

“GE’s engine is uniquely designed to fit both the F-35A and F-35C without any structural modifications to either airframe, enabling improved aircraft range, acceleration and cooling power to accommodate next-generation mission systems (like laser weapons), while ensuring better durability and higher availability.

While General Electric states that its XA100 can be used on the F-35A and C, it does not discuss the B model, which should continue to rely on the current Pratt & Whitney F135s, which would call into question the future availability of the Bravo, vertical-landing version of the F-35.”

https://www.aviacionline.com/2022/03/ge-begins-testing-of-its-xa100-adaptive-cycle-engine-for-the-f-35/

Agreed

Totally agree.

There never was a plan for both to do strike. However, I do see the second one being used as more of a commando carrier.

With 70+ jets a load out of 24 jets on one carrier + helos and 12 on the other plus chinook and apache.

The reality is that as they are very new big and well designed and built the deep maintenance periods will be shorter.

In future it could well be 12-18 F35s with the same number of drones, or more even, to boost numbers.

For Amphibious Ops, the 1SL stated that the carriers would carry 12 F35Bs at a minimum. I guess this is the minimum number that is envisaged to support ground forces, whilst also providing combat air patrols. Though that leaves the air wing perilously small, if they loose a few aircraft through combat and attrition.

The lower number is I guess, to make sure the ship has sufficient space for both Jungly Merlins and Chinooks, along with Apaches. With both the Merlin and to some degree the Apache, you can fold the main rotor blades back over the tail, which minimizes the aircraft’s footprint. You can’t really do that with a Chinook, as you will always have a blade sticking out the front or the back, due to the 120 degree spacing and 60 degree spaced intermesh between the forward and aft blades. The lifts and hangar were designed to take Chinooks without the need for stripping them down. Hence why they can be seen parked in the hangar with the blades still fitted.

Due to the huge flight deck area and the large hangar, I’m sure that the ship could easily embark 4 to 5 Chinooks, 10 Merlins and 6 Apaches, with sufficient space for more than 12 Lightnings, along with 3 Crownest Merlins. A long time ago, Boeing did propose a marinized Chinook, that used a development of the CH46 Sea Knight’s folding blade mechanism. But the US Marines chose the V22 instead. Whilst I believe we are the only country to use the Chinook in a fully maritime capacity. Unfortunately we didn’t/don’t have the money to pay for the modification.

Things will get muddier, when the Navy introduces the UAV force multipliers. If the proposed Vixen is to be a tanker and AEW, it won’t be small. To carry a meaningful fuel amount it will need to be as big, if not bigger than a F35. Same with carrying a decent long range radar. To supply the electrical power requirements, it’s going to need a hefty engine/s. Along with sufficient structure to mount the large antenna array.

Similarly, for the loyal wingman aircraft, which I believe will be a different aircraft to the larger AEW/tanker requirement. It will also take up deck space. If it is about the size of the Hawk, its weapons load will be quite small. An aircraft with a decent weapons load will need to be bigger and therefore take up more space. But having 12 loyal wingman along with 12 F35Bs would provide quite a force.

When the USMC joined our round the World cruise last year on carrier strike group 21 (CSG21). Even with all 18 F35Bs on the deck. The flight deck looked quite empty, not withstanding an near empty hangar.

Although the Navy haven’t admitted it in public, I do believe they desire a dedicated helicopter carrier to concentrate on and support Amphibious Ops. Thereby, leaving the two QE carriers to conduct the full spread of combat air patrol, ground support and even anti-submarine warfare missions. Which therefore requires a much larger number of F35s, Vixens etc. Especially if there is a need to quickly dominate the theatre of operations air space.

As an aside, The USAF has just gone public in announcing a first batch buy of B737 AEW&C (Wedgetails – not sure if the USAF will call them that?). Reports vary on the initial batch number, with between 10 and 15 mentioned. They have said that it is the best aircraft that is currently available to replace their legacy Sentries.

But this got me thinking about our small paltry buy of 3 Wedgetails. The Navy have stated that Vixen will replace the Crowsnest Merlins. The MoD also published a request for information on a medium weight EMAL cat and trap system that is required by 2024 to 2026. Meaning the Vixen will likely be a reasonably large fixed wing aircraft, perhaps along the lines of Boeing’s MQ-25 Stingray. With today’s AESA technology, the aircraft could provide a constant 360 degree azimuth view. But also would be able to better the Searchwater 2000’s detection range. Even if the radar operated in the same X-band as Searchwater, an AESA equivalent pound for pound will provide better detection range. But if the aircraft is of a sufficient size, it could carry a lower frequency radar operating in the C or S bands. Which would add another 50 to 100 miles detection range as a minimum.

This brings me back to the MoD’s decision on Wedgetail. To make a Vixen AEW doable, you need to build sufficient aircraft to balance the costs. A carrier is likely to require 4 to 5 aircraft, to provide 24/7 coverage for both AEW and air to air refuelling. If both carriers are being considered for joint operations, then 8 to 10 are required. Another 2 to 4 in maintenance or training, brings the numbers up 10 to 14 or a full squadron’s worth. So that is the Navy sorted.

Is it feasible to have the aircraft do both roles simultaneously? Possibly, but you will need to block off transmitting to the rear of the aircraft when transferring fuel. You will also require stringent electrical isolation and insulation, to prevent explosions from the fuel vapour hazard.

Perhaps just as significantly, the aircraft would also be useful for the UK’s AEW requirement. Where a similar number could be used to compliment the 3 Wedgetails. Which would then mean a production of around 20 to 28 aircraft. The Vixen AEW is unlikely to have the same detection range as the Wedgetail’s MESA radar, as it will be a smaller aircraft and thereby mount a smaller radar. Which means more aircraft will be needed to provide the same coverage. It also means the unmanned aircraft can do the majority of the UK’s AEW requirement, leaving the Wedgetail to be deployed on overseas operations etc.

This all depends on a successful aircraft being designed, built and that actually works. It will quite a few years before it can be embarked on the carriers. Which will again take time to get up to full operational capability, so possibly 5 to 7 years from now. This means the 3 Wedgetails will be maxed out in conducting both UK AEW along with any overseas requirements. Not to mention at some point, one will be unavailable for long periods due to scheduled maintenance. At least another 2 aircraft are required to just balance out today’s requirements. I really cannot see the rationale behind the MoD’s decision, unless they were told by the Treasury of course!

To me, it needs ~70 jets to make the system work, but I honestly don’t see us putting more than 36 airframes at a time onto one of the carriers (unless the USMC got involved). That leaves ~ a squadron active for RAF tasks (probably at Akrotori?), plus refit, training, etc. Looking at how they’re being used by the US, the most that they’re looking to concentrate in one place seems to be 15-20; two squadrons of 10 F-35C are the stealth component of a USN carrier air wing, similar numbers appear to be comprising a USMC air group on their gator flat tops. I don’t know if that’s down to availability or whether, for the foreseeable, a force of 2 squadrons of F-35B plus 4thGEN support is considered to be more than sufficient for purpose. The answer, I suppose, will be whether that split stays the same, and focus moves to whatever 6th GEN solution the US comes up with, or if they start building out more F-35-heavy air wings. The USAF looks to be ordering more 4th GEN alongside a reduction in the number of F-35A, so I think the former.
In short, I don’t think we need any more than 36 aircraft on a carrier.
I also see little point in having F-35s for UK air defence- leave it to Typhoon. Preferably, keep the T1s for straight air defence role. F-35 is a strike platform, forward deploy them and use them for what they’re meant for. That said, the fact that they’re so limited in their air-ground loadout baffles me…

But one of the most important points of the F35B is the ease of carrier qualification and the ability to surge a larger air wing. That’s a key point.

Also in reality to have an operational air wing of 24 on a carrier + a squadron for other uses + operational conversion + airframes in deep maintenance, you need a fleet of well over 70 air frames. If you want the four squadrons +OCU you would want close to 100 air frames.

But and this is a big but if you do have 4 squadrons of F35 plus the operational conversion, you can swing an air wing of 50+ split across the two carriers.

So why not maximise our air wing Surge potential it makes sense that is the overwhelming strategic Benefit to F35B and a very significant conventional strategic deterrent. We may never put more than 24 fast jets on only one carrier at a time. But if we max the B buy have the 4 squadrons + operational conversion squadron that is a very scary what if our potential opponents will need to think about. Conventional carriers ( US and French) cannot do this surge due to carrier qualification.

As for the carrier never being available together, there is a clear plan to have the potential of two carriers and any peer on peer engagement is likely to build of time, So yes we could easily see two carrier deployed, both with F35Bs.

The carrier and F35B Some of the most flexible and important assets we have. Why limit their potential capability by under purchasing on the F35B and going for the F35A, that’s called buying stupid and planning badly.

A Carrier is never going to sail with 70 aircraft even if they bought 100+ F-35Bs. In theory they could carry ~56 with some efficiency but when you bring in the AEW/ASW suite that goes down to maybe 40 F-35Bs. If the drone role is expanded there might not be a need for more than 36 F-35Bs available at any given time for deployment on a carrier. I can’t see there ever being more than 32-36 deployed anyway (for a total air wing of 40-50).

It,s painfully obvious we cannot Afford to operate one carrier leave alone two In five years the QE has only deployed once then with the help of the US marine corp .The USA would of course call the shots with their marines aboard.

I hope I don’t. As always, I’m being realistic as fantasy fleets happens too often for some on here. 👍

Morning K. So do I. Though I do understand the reasons given by posters such as our Robert B.

Do not the Tranche 1 Typhoons have a laser designator pod?

The Ukrainian’s will need to replace their SU-27 and MiG-29 fleets post war. They’ve had trouble supporting them for years, and the destruction of their repair facilities will only make things worse. We also need to arm them that heavily that Russia never comes back for a second bite….and also equip them with NATO compatible gear.

Everyone has been talking about F-16’s, assuming the US has a huge number of non-clapped out ones they can send. But that isn’t the truth. Lots of the older models are earmarked for the QF-16 programme. But there are some solutions…none super fast, but for the post war re-capitalisation of Ukraine’s Air Force they’re perfect.

Some suggestions…

1) SU-27 replacement – Air superiority. 2 real choices…old US F-15C or Typhoon Tranche 1. UK, Germany and Spain all due to replace T1’s very soon…at least 60 a/c available, more if Italy chips in.

2) MiG-29 – Either F-16C or….Sweden does have a decent number of Gripen C stored, they’reshifting to Gripen E.

3) SU-24 – No great solution for this, but Typhoon and Gripen could take on the burden.

4) SU-25 – No great solution…but Georgia can produce and maintain these. No point getting them old A-10. Armed drones are probably the solution. Lots of MQ-1 Predator available in the US.

5) Plenty of Mi-8/17 available and Mi-24. But if you had to replace the Mi-24 there are plenty of AH-1W recently retired from the US.

6) As for transports the UK and US have plenty of C-130H that could be provided. Ukraine could continue to use AN-124 and IL-76 on their own resources.

7) A quick solution for AAR would be for Canada and Germany to pass on their A310 MRTT. Both will be shifting to A330 shortly.

It’s not all instant, would take a few years to achieve. But it would provide sufficient NATO compliant kit to see Ukraine through for a fair few years before they’re integrated further.

Yes that would involve a lot of infrastructure that is all RAF. The FAA have heron which is now jammers full of joint helicopter command squadrons. So I think they have 10 rotor squadrons and a T1, so probably not a lot of space there and there would need to be a shed load of work. Seahawk is the same focused on rotor squadrons with even less suitability for fast jets than Heron.

So unless the RAF give over RAF Marham and the FAA want to take on a whole new air station I can’t see it ever happening.

I do think we underestimate or have memory fade of the benefits of VTOL – their ability to land in austere environments makes them particularly useful, as does the ability to disperse them (subject to logistics).

Its a fantastic aircraft – now cheaper than a typhoon and is of real benefit to UK industry.

I think the F35B gets an unfair press – compare it against Harrier (which everyone liked) rather than the Typhoon which is a totally different set of requirements.

the key is can it become a “quarterback” type asset that sends unmanned systems into the Deep – if so it may be an absolute bargain…

If we’re operating off the assumption that over 2% of the fleet will be lost every year (haven’t checked that for the harrier) then yes, of course we would need more aircraft.

The intended life span of this aircraft is, what, 30 years? Maybe closer to 40? At that rate we should expect to be down to about 10 jets in their last years in service.

Following up on the harrier losses, I couldn’t find a single SHAR2 being lost at any point. The last time any harrier operating off RN carriers was lost was in 1994 when it was shot down by an Strela. Before that I believe it was sometime in the 80s. Something like 20+ years without air losses from carrier operations. Now with a more modern system and presumably better handling, we should expect it to be a yearly occurrence?

I’m all with you that carrier-borne aircraft are more effective in many respects than land based ones. But unless the RAF should cease land-based operations completely and we buy another 6-8 carriers to accommodate them all, I don’t really see that happening. Either way it’s not economically viable. There’s no country on Earth with their air power based exclusively in naval aviation and I don’t see that changing for the foreseeable future.

Re F-35A vs B. The A has access to weapons that do not fit in B weapons bays. B61-12, JASSM-ER, AARGM-ER, 2000lb laser guided/GPS bombs, bunker buster bombs, anti ship missiles, etc. Sorry DM & all, but in my fantasy fleet the RAF gets 24 F-35A to replace T1 Typhoon. Not to usurp T2&3 Typhoon or Tempest, but just to use these weapons. Bit like the 2 Sqns of Buccaneer/Tornado with Sea Eagle, in the past.

Absolutely not. The F35 is a totally joint venture. People from both RAF and FAA backgrounds will serve as needed in all rolls and on all squadrons.

No, at current planning both Sqns will be joint. The ratios may reverse but in essence they’ve completely changed the Op Model in the Lightning force.

I agree; 90 is the way to go for 4 squadrons. Sadly, I don’t think the treasury feels the same.

Especially given what’s going on with Russia the Treasury needs to pull their finger out and increase defence funding; 2.5% (£50 billion) a year would be fine, with maybe a £20 billion lump sum.

80 would not give 4 operational squadrons.

A squadron with 12 frontline aircraft will generally have a further 3 in squadron reserve, 3 in war reserve, 1.5 in attrition reserve, so you need 19-20 aircraft to field a squadron.

Then there are the aircraft needed for the OEU, OCU and Wing Commander, which will total around 11 or 12 aircraft.

A 3-squadron fleet would need about 72 aircraft.

If squadron strength is cut to 10 frontline aircraft, which must be a strong likelihood with the Treasuty looking to cut costs across the board then 60 F-35bs would give 3 squadrons.

In my view, that is quite enough to put one squadron on the carrier, one to provide close air support for ground forces and one to surge in either role.

It is not what 1SL wants, the navy would like loads to equip both carriers. But as we only have 150 fast jets, and do not have the budget to increase that number 80 or whatever on carriers , leaving 70 for the RAF, is completely dispoportionate and greatly overstates the wartime value of one carrier in the wider scheme of things.

Remember F35 was suppose to be the last manned fighter. I think we will end up with not much more than 100 manned aircraft supported by several hundred drones.

I think so, I’m not the best to answer that one.

LM certainly aren’t covering themselves in glory WRT Blk4, 16 years since it flew and in a strike role can still only drop bombs (UK version), Blk 4 can’t come soon enough!!

Thanks John. Interesting read.

Not sure they would as it would result in more training burden and more spares. I think specific Air Generals (or whatever the flyers call themselves these days) want A’s so they don’t have to play in a joint environment, but stuff those dinosaurs.

They probably would if a larger fleet was being procured (50 F35B for the carriers and 90 F35A for example) but if the total is going to top out at around 70 the RAF will know it’s just too wasteful and inefficient to have small fleets within fleets.

I hope not.

Having bought the carriers, it makes no sense buying the A.

Unless Tempest is canned, in which case A will be bought instead I suspect.

Bad idea getting a split F35 fleet (As+Bs). Only 30% commonality. Means training, spares, repairs, logistics etc will all be duplicated and in the long run more expensive.

Are you 100% sure the A will add to the costs. Its already a lot cheaper to buy and fly than the B whilst offering more capability. Its likely the cost of the A will continue to fall as more enter service.

Indeed. What the RAF HAS said they want is Tempest, precisely because it will deliver capabilities well in excess of F35A.

It’s unbelievable that the F35 does not have the “open architecture” style software that has been claimed for other systems to allow easy integration of new weapons. The Tacitus CMS for the T31 is (apparently) able to easily add different weapons.
Obviously it’s a bit different for an aircraft but even so. Unless LM is genuinely having development issues, which at this level is not good enough, it smacks of not bothering to integrate better foreign weapons systems. After all, who would not want to carry Meteor missiles or employ swarms or networking Spear 3 both explosive and EW varieties? Form a queue!
AA