By the end of 2024, the UK will have acquired 37 of the first 48 F-35B aircraft batch.

In a recent parliamentary exchange, Labour MP Luke Akehurst sought details on the progress of the UK’s F-35B procurement. His question to the Ministry of Defence, dated 12th September 2024, asked:

“To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, how many F-35B aircraft he expects his Department to have taken delivery of by the end of 2024.”

Responding on 8th October 2024, Luke Pollard, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence, provided the following update:

“Against the current schedule, it is projected that by end of calendar year 2024, the UK will have taken ownership of 37 F-35B aircraft.”

We recently reported the arrival of more F-35B jets, which means the UK, as of today, has 34 stealth jets. With one aircraft lost in an accident and four test jets in the US, there are now 30 of the type in operational service in the UK.

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.

Jeremy Quin, then Minister of State at the Ministry of Defence, stated last year:

“Funding for a second tranche of F-35 Lightning has been delegated to Air Command as part of our recent annual budget cycle. Funding for Atlas A400M which not yet been delegated. A decision on future tranches of F-35B will be made in due course.”

For more on the planned additional A400M purchase see here, now, on to the F-35B.

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

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

How many are expected?

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.”

UK appears to recommit to full order of 138 F-35Bs

 

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

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

149 COMMENTS

      • As a Labøür voter, I was optimistic.

        But with the government’s rhetoric, my gut says this will be all the F35s we end up having. No increase.

        • 48 was the initial order, Lockheed releases the orders in waves. We can’t order a huge block all at once because they won’t take it. The money for the next 24 is already allocated and sat waiting for Lockheed to come round and fill the next tranche. After those it’s dependant on the operational needs and the economic situation, both current and previous governments have stated 138 will be the maximum* number over the lifetime of the program – how long that is we don’t know. I’d imagine we will go in for another tranche after the 72 are fully delivered at the end of this decade or the begining of next.

          The F-35 programme isn’t the sort where you buy a load at the very beginning and that’s it, the jet will likely still be being sold in 30 odd years. Other countries have to go through the same phased purchase situation we do, have a look at the Israeli and SKs situation with them. This whole media frenzy around the supposed cancellation of F-35 numbers sparked because the first initial order we’ve made was 48 and not the programs *life time* goal of 138 – then as per usual all the media sites then used one another as a source without fact checking and ignored the fact that we are still fully intent on going 72 and beyond over the next decades.

          • Presumably the decision re the acquisition of a Tranche 2 of F-35Bs (1–24 a/c) is dependent upon guidance provided by next SDR. Will the decision also be dependent upon certain F-35 Programme milestones (e.g., a SWAG for implementation of Block 4 software)? If so, envision the decision to be held in abeyance for an indefinite time period…🤔😳😱

    • Because you didn’t understand it? No offence meant but most readers haven’t had an issue, it’s a bit unfair to decide it’s dire. I’ll change it if that helps but please do remain civil.

      • The fact that they won’t be combat capable until at least the end of 2025 perhaps?

        TR-3 issues means that they’re good for training only…

  4. Tempest or Tranche 2 F35B?

    Maybe Tranche 2 is trimmed so we get 60, not 72, and Tempest goes ahead.

    I’d take that.

    • 12 extra F-35b, is Not a full air combat squadron. At least 18 is required to meet reserve requirements, like standby and war reserve. This issue was discussed here sometime ago by a former RAF guy.
      I don’t know where the idea of 60 total F-35B’s, is coming from?

      • No, but there is rarely enough of anything.
        The 60 is coming from me.
        I’m looking for middle ground.
        I’d read suggestions HMT is saying it’s F35 or Tempest.
        So, if we cannot choose one or the other, if go for a reduced 2nd tranche if it secures Tempest.

        • 3 small x 9 aircraft operational Squadrons =27
          8, OCU
          3, OTU
          10 in use reserve
          48 airframes, with 12 in the reserve/ maintenance fleet.

          That’s just about doable, that way a sustainable airgroup of 18 would be carrier deployed, surging up to 36 with reserves for short periods.

          So a carrot and stick approach, an order for 13 additional machines, off set by only one Carrier operational, with the other in refit/ reserve, alternating every 3 years…

          • 1 operational, 1 reserve was actually the original plan, alongside 1 LPD active, 1 reserve.
            Both Carriers are crewed since Cameron’s 2015 announcement.
            I want to see both AND the LPDs crewed but we must be realistic with the current recruitment issue.
            Just looking for an acceptable compromise.

          • Cheers Paul, it’s not ideal, but as Daniele said, we need more than the funded 48.

            60 ‘just about’ squeaks in as a viable force that would allow a surged 36 carrier strike capability on a single Carrier when required, and a viable 18 aircraft strike force for normal deployments.

            My preference would be an order for 90, that would allow four 12 aircraft Squdrons and two operational carriers.

            But, we need Tempest too, so its a balanced approach within the limited funding available…

          • Recruitment is urgent and important. T26 is urgent and important. More than 48 F-35s is important but probably not urgent. Ditto replacing the LPDs. MRSS may be important but is it urgent if Norway is willing to help us out? If Putin is the most important and urgent threat that tilts funding towards fast jets, the army and long range V1 type drones.

          • FSSS is urgent as we are moving towards a 10 year capability gap as it stands. The longer the gap the harder it is to regenerate the capability. Maud is a great ship and we are lucky the Norwegians are helping us out with it, but it isn’t a dedicated solid replenishment ship. It’s general purpose oiler based on a smaller version of the Tide class design (Aegir-18 as opposed to Aegir-26). With fuel, food, S&R and hospital capabilities, the amount of space dedicated to ammunition will be far smaller than the proposed FSS design, with a general stores capacity of 1,350 m3 as opposed to FSS’s capacity of 9000 m3.

          • Apologies. I confused myself there. I meant FSS not MRSS. Understand what you say and thx for the info on Maud. A 10 year gap does sound terminal.

          • No problem, Paul. I knew what you meant.

            I believe Ft Vic was last used in anger in CSG 21. Former Minister Baroness Goldie stated that the first FSSS would be operational in 2031. If Ft Vic doesn’t sail again and we get no sovereign interim capability (such as an American cast off or reworking one of the Tides), the gap will approach ten years. However, the Baroness was giving information prior to the demise of H&W. If the new government insists on the FSS competition being re-rerun after recently talking up British-built ships, I can see it taking even longer.

            I’d would have liked to see us order a ship from Daewoo, but I’m told they are clogged up with orders, so adapting a Tide might be the interim solution we need. I wonder if Lairds has the capacity, even though their record on speed isn’t encouraging.

          • Don’t forget that the F35 is jointly operated by the the FAA and RAF, the RAF will have there own needs and operations that will be separate from carrier operations

          • Sorry, but won’t there inevitably be periods where at least one QE class will be in deep maintenance/refit every (5?) years per Lloyd’s mandate? And other periods when both would theoretically be available?

          • No such thing as in use reserve, there is just the forward fleet and those in maintenance. Not sure that aircraft are actually allocated to individual squadrons at all, but are allocated depending on tasking.

          • I’m assuming that there are more in the forward fleet than the offical allocated numbers for the various Units, hence an in use reserve?

        • Didn’t the MoD promise a Tempest demonstrator by 2025? So it seems Tempest is running behind by at least 2 years or so. In that case I would prefer one more full F-35b Sq. for FAA ordered. 609 Sq. can be converted to a Tempest Sq. in 2038, it’s F-35b’s handed over to FAA to form a 3rd FAA Sq.

          • I don’t know the timescale for a Tempest demonstrator.
            I only know it’s underway at Warton and some journalists have had a peek.

          • Warton Preston has a fabulous history; Canberra, Lightning, TSR2, EAP-Typhoon. Tempest stands in a long line of Britsh aeronautical excellence. It will fly and it will be the best!

          • We read only a few weeks back that a Tempest demonstrator is expected within 2 years, (can’t remember the exact timescale but can be searched if required) so seems decidedly impressive to me considering the negotiations with Japan and Italy that had been going on past few years. Yes it will be fundamentally a UK design rather than truly representative of the combined effort but surely it will reflect as much of its Characteristics including aerodynamically as possible in the timescale or at least some flexibility to increasingly developed to reflect the final design. Sensors are already being or will be tested on an existing flying testbed, engines won’t be the final design so aerodynamic aspects seem to be a vital element and even before the merger RR and Bae were employed to design the Japanese aerodynamic structure where it impinged on the engine and exhaust.

          • The FAA do not own a single F-35B, they are all on the books of Air Command as the Lightning force is a joint asset.

          • I recall it being by 2027. It might even come a little earlier than that, so I don’t believe it’s delayed. Might you be confusing it with the Proteus demonstrator that should be flying next year?

      • No such thing as war reserve or standby, there is just the forward fleet that is in service with the squadrons, and those in one of the various levels of maintenance.

    • The Armed Forces have been hurt a good few times on cuts now and jam tomorrow promises. If there had to be a choice, I’d slow down Tempest for more F35s. F35s aren’t a concept on a computer, or a plastic model.

    • I guess that’s be a fair replevining for the Tranche 1 Typhoon . Pretty thin though – currently 7 Typhoon sqns+ 1 F35. Two for the RN I believe?

      Disheartening that the RAF had16 frontline jet sqns post the 2004 defence revie, so now down 50% .

    • DM, one report I saw, said that the first 14 UK F-35B are too difficult/expensive to upgrade, so 14 new ones would be my minimum, if that report is true. Plus Tempest goes ahead, of course.

  5. Talk about a closed answer to a closed question. We will have taken delivery of 37 F35B aircraft by EOY. Which of course includes the 4 test aircraft and 1 which crashed. So 32 operational aircraft with 10 still to go.
    In May it was reported that we had 34 Aircraft of which 30 were operational, so 7 months we have added just 2 Aircraft.
    I actually feel sorry for George and his Team it can’t be easy writing a quality article with poor material.

    • That’s where their skill lays, reading around the statements and judging mood and intent. What the government doesn’t say is where the truth is, George and Co. have to make guesstimates on which side of the statement the answer will land. That’s what I pay for.

    • I have read elsewhere and not sure of their source, that the 3 oldest test aircraft are due to have their orange wiring removed and sent over to the UK.

      • I read that too, at least about the removal of the orange wiring. They will never be deployable, but might serve as part of the training capability releasing a plane which can.

  6. “Britain set to receive 37 F-35 stealth jets by end of 2024”
    See, the headline needs to be worded better, because this sounds like we are getting an extra 37 by the end of the year, which is highly unlikely.

    • It’s funny how people interpret in different ways. I didn’t see it like that at all, it just updates the existing schedule.

    • I would never have interpreted the headline that way. Who could believe it was 37 extra jets built and delivered in little over 2 months?

      • I read it as an increase in current numbers up to 37 because I know the history of slow procurement.
        However if you didn’t know then tbh it is incorrect, as it implies we will be getting an additional 37 .
        As for 60 as a total , I wasn’t happy with the 70 so nope it doesn’t do it for me.
        I don’t think it provides the 4 front line squadrons which is a minimum.
        There is no guarantee Tempest will be going ahead so “A bird in the hand an all that”.

        • Hi George, I’m not sure if people are just having a bit of fun here, I think the headline is clear and knowing the delivery rate of the F35B to the UK it is would be difficult to interpret it a different way.

          • Agree.
            “Britain set to have” is not “Britain set to have another”
            The article updates the current, well-known delivery schedule and is in no way whatsoever misleading.

        • Thanks George –
          “Britain set to receive 37 F-35 stealth jets by end of 2024”
          OK, It mislead me, BoF and Spartan to immediately conclude that we were going to take delivery of another 35 F35s by the end of 2024. So I’m not alone in thinking that. I see you have altered it now.

          I’m sorry if my remark offended you, George – that’s absolutely that last thing I would want to do. The veracity of your (and other contributors) reporting is world class – I’m sure all your readers would agree with that. Keep up the excellent work!

          • My reply was a bit defensive, sorry about that, lack of sleep. I don’t believe it was misleading but evidently it did mislead, so it must have been, not intentionally however. I hope the revision is better. Thanks for the kind words despite my snippy response.

        • I agree only those who don’t know we have around 30 already would presumes we are getting 37. Never crossed my mind to take it that way until the discussion over it here. I’m just wondering how many people come here with very little existing knowledge not for me to answer really, up to George.

  8. Hopefully, the SDR will provide clarity on future F35 numbers and Tempest. Personally, I think Tempest will continue. And after Labours comments about hollowed out Armed Force’s, they shouldn’t delay T2 F35B. Especially if the funding has already been allocated for those 27 jets.

    • The thing is a mountain of money has been spent to create the F35B training pipeline and basing facilities as well as on the CSG concept.

      F35B is central to RAF air power right now and is the cheapest and fastest way to grow it as it is already in five planning assumptions and budgets.

      Cancelling Tempest or delaying it means a make work project is needed for Warton.

      • Exactly. Tempest has always been sold as a Typhoon replacement. So it shouldn’t come at the expense of F35 and limiting carrier strike capability.

        • Indeed, and it would be wildly inconsistent with the UK national interest for the SDR and Industrial Strategy not to fully support Tempest. Sovereign capabilities matter.
          Factor in UK international relations with Italy and Japan specifically but also general credibility and export opportunities to further justify a solid, focused effort.
          It’s got to be done..

          • Harrier yes. Tornado no. Integrating StormShadow and Brimstone onto Typhoon was the official line of transferring Tornado GR4 capability to Typhoon. But F35 can do way more than any Tornado good ever do.

          • Tornado could do TFR down to 200ft. F35 has terrain referenced navigation. Plus, with all aspect stealth. That reduces the need for extreme terrain following radar which gives off tell tale radar emissions.

          • No it cannot as it lacks range and the ability to carry weapons beyond free fall Paveway 500lb bombs and ASRAAM and AMRAAM air to air missiles. Tornado was WAY beyond that in terms of cleared weapons from 27mm to multiple Stormshadow.

          • It does not lack range with 13;000 pounds of internal fuel. Typhoon has StormShadow capability and F35 is getting SPEAR CAP3. 8 of these missiles will be carried internally. Tornado was great in its day. But F35 is a true 5th gen capability. Its on another planet with overall capability. And the options it provides force commanders.

          • F-35 was sold as a Harrier and Sea Harrier replacement. The Tornado just went out of service unreplaced.
            The Typhoon is the central core of RAF Airpower, not the F-35.

          • Both are. They complement each other with different capabilities. But F35 will be in service long after Typhoon has been withdrawn from service.

  9. What really boils my urine is we can give away billions but not afford to replace a lost asset like the F35b ..if we need 48 then why hasn’t it been replaced ? When we throw away tens of billions on vanity what is an extra £100 m for a new fighter ..nothing !

    • Jason, here’s a cigar and a shot for hitting that nail on the head. It is beyond annoying HMG can spaff £22bn on other countries where, if that money went on our military, it would deliver some excellent capabilities.

    • The T2 order (should it happen) includes a replacement aircraft. The planned order is for 27 aircraft. Originally, it was for 26.

      • This is correct and has money set aside for this but wasnt released due to general election.
        This now in the hands of the new government.
        Speaking to many military personel over the years we would need 4 operational squadrons as a minimum requirement plus an operational conversion squadron. So far 617 and 809 are operational and 207 being the OCU.
        You can fit 3 squadrons on each carrier so full operational squadrons would be 6 which on paper would make sence.
        That will probably never happen.
        If the conflict in the middle east continues to esculate or Putin in Ukraine decides to swap to other countries or China continues its provications in the south china sea. We would need not only 6 squadrons but 9 and possibly a third carrier. <<<< hypothetical ..
        I wouldnt scrap our tranche 1 typhoons just yet i do believe this is inament. Big mistake.
        I think Previous government selling off our c130 fleet was huge mistake without having the required A400 Atlas fleet operationally trained for special forces.
        Our T2 hawks have huge issues with maintenaince.
        So we would need to also look at a Hawk replacement during this government reign.
        Someone mention the Tempest. Yes first aircraft is in build at Warton. Its great to have a neighbour on the project.
        Will this govenment keep to a 2.5% of GDP i doubt it but with things esculating around the world. This would be a stupid idea.
        You could save money by cancelling our Nuclear deterent submarines. The Astute class subs are world class so another 3 on top of what is in order would be very advantagous.
        Sorry long winded but there is a lot to discuss
        Very pationette about our military and yes i served on front line squadrons.

        • The current administration has just committed to 2-5% of GDP, when it can be afforded but definitely before the end of this Parliament. The budget is most probably going to announce a change in fiscal rules to allow additional borrowing, and I would expect some of that to come to defence. You cannot spend what you have not got! And if the Tories had stuck to that over the last year or two we would not be in the fiscal mess that we are in!!

  10. This isn’t a “bash Britain” post. Recently I’ve been looking into the Israel armed forces (for obvious reasons) and one of the things I noted was that they have significantly more combat aircraft than us.

    I understand that they do not have anywhere near as large a navy nor a nuclear deterrent, but this still really stuck me and I found it quite odd.

    Our defense spending (in dollars) is nearly three times theirs.

    Is there some obvious mitigating factor that I am missing with this? Or is it a big case of trident, pensions et al being included in our defense spending to make it seem much bigger than it is?

    • Trident.
      AWE.
      Pensions.
      Ukraine money.
      Large infrastructure estate.
      R&D budget.
      Government and MoD incompetence over decades pushing up costs.
      SSNs.
      And that Israel gets a nice chunk of dollars from the USA, we don’t.
      I have not studied their military in any real detail but I suspect they have a small supporting tail and more front end, essential in their predicament with enemies all around.
      The MoD is considerable and more than just the 3 services.

        • yes that is a very good point. It is easy to forget our the global infrastructure that we have. From Jungle training in north America to ship repair in bahrain, and the Gurkas over in brunai

          • The very thing I’ve been fretting about Labour giving away over the last 6 months.
            So let’s see.

      • Don’t the Royal Air Force have the advantage over IDF of clear water between the territory defended and a possible enemy?

        So far as I can tell the IDF have state enemies on their border or within ballistic missile range such that QRA is skipped and live engagement is expected..

        That suggests 24/7/365 cover is their need and focus, with maintenance and attrition reserve as usual matters not a hypothetical.

        Since they’ve been in a shooting war for more than a year, you’d expect IDF to be at the front of the F-35 queue. So no impact on Ukraine who operate F-16 from non-US friendly sources 🇳🇱🇩🇰🇧🇪

    • They don’t have a Nuclear deterrent ? It’s been widely known that Israel has a very large stockpile of Tactical and Strategic Nuclear weapons and the delivery systems as well. It was leaked to the Times in 1986 by Moredechai Vanunu, it didn’t do him much good as Mossad nabbed him and jailed him for Treason.
      According to FAS Israel is estimated to have on excess of 400 Nuclear weapons.
      What everyone fails to understand about Israel’s budget is it’s not really a level playing field. A small peacetime force, with compulsory conscription plus a huge reserve so Staffing costs are lower. Plus they get a lot of Military Aid from the US and have a very active export industry.
      As for their navy well most of it is built in Germany and is very heavily subsidised by the German Government. It’s sort of an informal reparations agreement.

    • Israel has been nuclear capable since the seventies. They steadily built a nuclear arsenal since then. The factor about Israel you must take into account is they have constantly effectively been at war. Only the level changes. They have never had the luxury of having gaps in capability. Everything they buy has to work from day one. They also have a good home defence industry. As more countries like ourselves, the Dutch and French refuse export licenses or suspend deliveries, the more self sufficient they become. The US is by far and away their biggest supplier and backer.
      As a side note the IDF are trying to fast track deliveries of there F15EX order.

    • Pensions are included in pretty much all western Armed forces budgets. Wages will definitely be higher in the UK. And the IDF users a large amount of reserve forces. Israeli forces are set up to defend Israel and strike In the region. They are not a globally deployed force like ours are.

    • Well they do have some form of a nuclear deterrent. But in all honesty they would collapse without US support and wide ranging beneficial support and offsets. They get a massive amount of support from the Jewish disapora too in all manner of ways.

    • I think Israel, a country almost permanently at war, can justify a large air force. Anyway, surely they get their fighters for a bargain price from the USA.

    • Israel is constantly at war. While that don’t prevent wastage and failure it makes them a much less chance of occurring because they would not survive with it

      Compared to UK note that Israel for example has a very large and complete land based air defence and much more drones and armored vehicles.

    • Israel is a nuclear power in the military sense. Clearly a very sensitive subject, but they are believed to be capable of delivering nukes by medium range ballistic missile, via submarine launched cruise missile and a free fall weapon dropped by aircraft.

      • I am sure they also have aircraft launched ballistic missiles with that capability. It do not make sense to be still in XX century launching free fall bombs

        • There was talk that they repurposed the Black and Silver Arrow air launched ballistic missile target drones, as offensive weapons. Israel did not specify what the warhead as. It would be a pretty good candidate. However, they do have the Jericho MRBM/ICBM series. Which is the lord likely candidate for carrying a nuke.

          Dropping of unguided nukes is still a thing in the XXI century. The US B61 is the prime example. The F35 is now cleared to use it.

      • oh yes, i genuinely forgot that they unofficially have nuclear weapons.
        I would be surprised if they had 24/7 submarine launch capability though

    • Yes, there is! Israel is surrounded by hostile states and terrorist organisations actively committed to, and engaged in, the elimination of Israel. They are in short range of all of these hostile actors and have defences configured to react accordingly. The UK is not in this position, and would only be if we were being threatened by France, Ireland, Holland or Belgium! So yes, you are missing a lot.

      • Fair point. It is observable how a truly active threat can improve efficiency and sharpen focus.
        I also look at Japan and their armed forces in this regard

    • I think it’s pretty common knowlage that Israel does have a nuclear deterrent. But we are terrible at funding decent conventional forces.

    • How does the accounting work? Does the Israeli military budget that you’re looking at include the US FMF (Foreign Military Financing) funds that Israel has to spend each year?

      I remember being in a meeting with an Israeli general some years ago finalising a deal for a quite significant sale of software to the IDF. Technically I wasn’t working for a US company at the time and if I was that would have made it very easy for them to get the products I was selling eligible for purchase using FMF funding rather than an “in country” (for want of a better phrase) budget. I remember the general asking me in that meeting whether there was any way we could find a way to register our product as eligible for FMF funding because (and this is pretty much his exact quote) “for every Dollar I have available from <whatever he called his local budget>, I have <x> Dollars available from the FMF budget”. [ I’m redacting exactly what <x> was just to be cautious but it was significant. ]

      I’m not claiming that <x> multiplier I was told is applicable across all IDF budgets, we were discussing some pretty specialist stuff so maybe that general’s project had particularly generous FMF funding available, but it did bring home to me the scale of FMF funding at least for some projects.

      As it happens I was able to get the products I was selling onto the FMF-approved list and from there the final stages of the sales process were interesting. Despite having spent about 18 months negotiating in-country with the local Israeli decision makers, for the final detailed contract negotiations I had to deal with an Israeli official based in New York and the official delivery address for the software had to be a warehouse in New Jersey.

      [ None of the above is in any way classified by the way. I had no security clearance at the time and wasn’t even under NDA (the Israelis simply at no point gave us any idea whatsoever about what they were going to use our software for). The Ts & Cs of what products are eligible for FMF funding are publicly available and I’m sure thousands of sales people in lots of companies have encountered that US-centric final contract negotiation and product delivery procedure. ]

      • Howdy, I really appreciate you sharing this and your input here.
        No I do not believe my info did include the fmf funding. That would explain a lot. Thank you for filling a bit of a knowledge gap!

  11. Assuming pilots are avaiable there is no earthly reason why we can’t have three operational squadrons of ten ( just my preference) by the end of 2026, not 2030 something which is where we are now from what I remember.

    • The fleet is pooled. So aircraft are assigned to a sqn depending on the operational requirement/deployment. You have aircraft assigned to the operational fleet. And aircraft assigned to the sustainment fleet. That’s aircraft in deep maintenance and upgrade. The maintenance contract guarantees X number of aircraft available to the frontline at anyone time. These numbers dictate the number of sqns we can have. To be honest. Sqn numbers are a little irrelevant. If aircraft are deployed overseas, they form part of a expeditionary air wing. Which is a number of units made into one fighting force. But the RAF need sqns like the Army need regiments. It’s tradition, and people need to feel they belong to a unit with identity. But the way we operate aircraft fleets is very different from days past.

      • Hi Robert, therein is the rub however. Retirement of Tranche 1Typhoon is a cut in numbers, regardless of sqn numbers. It’s a worry.

        I accept I have a bias, however the RAF jet force has repeatedly received the thin edge the wedge.

        • Hi mate. A cut is never good. But, the RAF can maintain the same operational output with just the T2/3 fleet. Why, you might ask?. Because the T2/3 are way more capable. And we move away from fleets within fleets. Which is an engineering planners nightmare. Engineering resources can now be better allocated, further impoving Typhoons already impressive availability. T1 aircraft have been a drain on resources. And now £2.5bn is being spent on upgrading the T2/3 fleet. Serious cash. New T4 aircraft would be great. But the combat air budget only goes so far.

          • Cheers Robert, good point on the T2/3 capabilities. For sure the 2,5 billion investment on upgrades is a significant investment.

          • Like I say. New airframes to replace the T1s would be great. But with the F35B fleet still growing, Tempest to fund, lots of new weapons and capabilities to fund. The money only goes so far.

  13. Any appetite in buying some A model? Buy 72 B’s for the carriers mainly and then additional A frames which would be a better buy for purely for the RAF?

    • I think that if the RAF got a sizable number of A models, some militarily naiive politicians might think they didn’t need Tempest so much.

        • Why? Tempest is a Typhoon replacement, not an F-35B replacement. A small F-35A fleet would allow the RAF to go some way to replacing the Tornado force which was retired without replacement.

          • We are buying F35B. Having two logistic tails, basing, training, infrastructure for a small F35A fleet isn’t worth the expense. F35B has identical capability to the A model. F35A carries a bit more fuel and can pull 9g to the F35Bs 7.5g. Other than that, avionics, radar, defensive aids, and helmet mounted display are the same. And the difference in the way they can take off and land obviously.

    • The RAF has an appetite as much because they won’t be shared resource as because of the greater range. The MOD won’t have that appetitie because of extra training maintenance and support costs. There’s no budget for having 72 Bs plus As on top. Unless the budget increases significantly, anything past 72 will be replacements over the long run.

  14. ‘as we fully establish all seven operational Typhoon Squadrons ‘ So how many Typhoons ade we expecting to buy in the near(ish) future?

    • None. But we are spending £2.5bn upgrading the T2/3 fleet. We can maintain 7 frontline sqns from 107 aircraft. The fleet is pooled. So aircraft are moved around to meet the requirements. The Typhoon engineering and maintenance contract (Typhoon Total Avilabilty Enterprise Contract) with BAE Systems guarantees X number of aircraft are available on any given day. With surge capacity available incase of urgent operational requirements.

  15. I,ll beleive it when i see it . One thing they havnt commited to is atime scale . They may buy 138 aircraft but over 50 years . I doubt we will have that number in service at any one time

    • The 138 number was always stated to be over the lifetime of the F35 Programme – nothing has changed in that respect,therefore you are correct in that they won’t all be in service at any one time.

      • I think that statement has been argued on here many trimes – if I recall correctly.
        There are those that claim the 138 was initially stated as the original order with intent to have them’ from the off’ so to speak.
        However I believe others have claimed about 94 (?) would suffice as the number required to run 4 (a minimum) front line squadrons properly/fully.

        It seems that the longer this procurment takes- along its associated issues regards engine upgrades & block 4 weapons integration etc.- the more it seems we wont even get over the 70- which must surely impact on our capability.

        As stated Tempest is -or was initially at least- stated as a replacement for Typhoon (not sure of the influence Japan has on that remit), and therefore we shoud look to ensure F35B numbers give us the capability and capacity we require from that platform – including (but not limited to) carrier strike.

  16. There are many idea’s floating around to what actually composes a credible fleet of F35’s. If we are just going to use them from carriers then you can work out that number using number required on board v training v available pilots v maintenance v grounded v Ops. If you then want them to undertake other missions then you will need a bigger fleet. Buying the aircraft is the cheap part is the through life maintenance cost which really places a burden on the purse strings. With a sole supplier they will dictate the cost of spares and support they will supply with the contract. Add in the human factor element then your are into the unknown, with personnel levels across all three branches of the military facing significant retention issues, putting A/C in the air will be tough, this along with putting ships to sea and keeping the Army moving is going to be a uphill battle.

    I’m not sure the RAF/RN would have the personnel to actually maintain or fly 138 F35 if we actually bought them all. You would need additional Air transport to move that kit (which we don’t have), along with a couple of thousand personnel. I don’t believe the UK Government has the will or desire to do what is needed when purchasing military hardware.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here