The UK has now received 40 of its planned fleet of 48 F-35B Lightning aircraft, following the latest delivery flight.
According to defence aviation trackers, aircraft 39 and 40 arrived yesterday, bringing the total delivered to 40.
40/48 F-35B on order delivered.
40:
18 – Carrier Deployment
17 – UK Training
4 – US Trials & Development Unit
1 – Lost https://t.co/XvXSUijVzq— Britsky (@TBrit90) August 19, 2025
Of these, 18 are assigned to carrier strike deployments, 17 are used for training in the UK, and four are with the U.S. test and development unit. One aircraft has previously been lost in an accident. The deliveries mark a significant milestone in the UK’s Lightning Force build-up. Eight aircraft remain to be delivered under the current order of 48, with decisions on further procurement expected as part of the government’s future combat air planning.
How many more?
The UK expects to complete procurement of an additional 12 F-35A and 15 F-35B aircraft by 2033, with the initial batch of 48 F-35Bs due for delivery by March 2026, according to statements made in the House of Lords.
Speaking during a defence question session, Minister of State at the Ministry of Defence Lord Coaker confirmed that the second phase of the UK’s F-35 programme will include 27 aircraft: “12 F-35As and 15 F-35Bs, which will enable the stand-up of the third front-line squadron focused on F-35Bs.”
He added that the government remains committed to acquiring 138 F-35s over the life of the programme, as first stated in its long-term plans. Lord Coaker also confirmed that the decision to procure F-35As now, ahead of the Defence Investment Plan expected this autumn, was taken in light of “serious geopolitical challenges” and does not alter the total number of aircraft planned. He said it was “important that we made that decision at this particular time in the light of the threat that we face.”
Responding to concerns raised by Lord Houghton of Richmond, Coaker acknowledged that the 12 F-35As would replace 12 of the originally planned F-35Bs and that the A variant is “some 20% cheaper,” saving approximately $240 million. However, he also confirmed that the UK currently lacks the sovereign air-to-air refuelling capability for the F-35A, meaning allied support will be necessary: “He is right about the refuelling capability; there will need to be allied support for that,” Coaker said.
Pressed by Lord West of Spithead, Coaker declined to commit to a review of the UK’s nuclear doctrine but noted that doctrine is always under consideration. He also reaffirmed that the broader investment decisions outlined in the Strategic Defence Review remain on track for the autumn, despite the timing of the F-35A announcement.
Baroness Goldie sought assurance on delivery timelines, to which Coaker responded that he had “every confidence” in meeting the procurement schedule for both variants.
This F35A decision has to be one of the daftest things ever outlined by the government. A saving of $240 million is nothing. How can these planes possibly carry a nuclear bomb when they can’t be refuelled.
How can they train on a nuclear mission if they are also the OCU.
I’m not sure who came up with this nonsense but they need to be shot.
F35A makes lots of sense if we are buying 75 of them an operating three extra squadrons. It makes zero sense to buy 12 as the OCU.
This government isnt exactly lining up the great decisions to pick from, think the only thing they have managed to do correctly is hand a letter from the King to the US president.
There have been successes under this government. Unfortunately, the nature of media often ensured that they aren’t reported.
“Successes under this Government”….nice one, a sense of humour, keep it up as we will all need one for the next 4 years!
Thumbs up
What a load of absolute crap. If you can’t post anything sensible why don’t you fcuk off? How about trying Guido Fawkes? You get the same complete bollox there too
Fair enough—sometimes the internet seems to reward shouting louder than making sense. At least it’s consistent!
I may not agree with Jim on everything, but I do appreciate that he genuinely cares about the UK military. Telling someone to ‘fuck off’ in a debate only makes you look foolish and irrelevant.
Your comments are very rude and offensive in reply to a reasoned and sensible comment . I am surprised that you are still allowed to post on this site . If you cannot be polite please keep quiet . There is a very good saying – good manners don’t cost anything .
Suggest that if you can’t moderate your language you confine your comments to Quora.
Hello David, personally I tend to read stuff, think about it then decide whether to add a comment or just move on. From what I have seen of Jims comments so far, he does appear to have strong opinions and doesn’t shy away from sharing them. As in all things in life, those opinions are just one side of any viewpoint. Jim does tend to devide those opinions but that’s all part of Human nature and healthy thinking.
When you say things like this on a public forum, no doubt using a fictitious name, it’s pointless and rather unintellegent and actually utterly ironic, more so than your own take on what you perceive to be a “load of absolute Crap”.
I guess at the root of your abuse lies a historical put down of something you once wrote ?
Maybe you can let it go now and move on ?
In the words of Ricky Gervais “no one cares”.
Good reply. The point of these sites comments sections is to debate, l love the strong opinions and will often put forth something I’m less than convinced over to see where the debate goes..sadly telling someone to fuck off just stops the debate and learning. 😬
If I may be so bold as to request that you refrain from quoting Ricky Gervais when attempting to add credence to a cohesive, salient, post …in fact please don’t mention Ricky Gervais in any post , at all… ever!
Ironically I would suggest (mayhap hope) no-one cares about Ricky Gervais 🙂
Ricky Gervais, Ricky Gervais, Ricky Gervais.
David, jim has his views ( some I agree with some I don’t) it can be different to yours. You have a strong view on many things that adds to the debate, your ongoing feud with Jim does not do it justice. I honestly don’t know how it started, but it really does make it difficult to understand your views and your additions to the debate.Honest feedback.
We all have strong views on some things and truly think others many be a bit wrong headed, but we challenge them and ourselves by exploring our own views and weighing them up.
A touch of little man syndrome from the armchair general. No need to be rude and make yourself look like a c u next Tuesday.
Your language just shows your lack of intelligence, manners and patience. It would be great if we had a ‘hide all from David’ option, similar to FB groups…
As I understand how this “Bone Chillingly, Slow, Risk Overse, Polically and Financially Shackled” process that is called “UK defence procurement” goes it makes comeplete sense. The present fully funded equipment plan of record contains the funding for 25 extra F35B’s which has long been scheduled to be announced right about now (at the latest).
So it’s in the plan, the Treasury has counted out the number of Pennies and the next “equipment plan” Oops sorry Defence Investment Plan (easy to remember acronym DIP$#1T if you think of the folks running it) and due to Politics they reallised that they really needed to announce it.
The timing was critical becuse it was “important that we made that decision at this particular time in the light of the threat that we face.”
That immediate threat being faced wasn’t Russia but far more immediate to Starmer as he was off to the NATO / Trump Arse kicking session and he was going to be the only NATO head of Government who had zero new US equipment on order.
TBH if it hadn’t been for that I think they would have delayed it and rolled the Finance over into the DIP and do what all Governments do reannonce it as new money.
But no 2 ways about it they will have to announce intent to order more F35Bs and A’s in the DIP or he is right back in the mire.
It’s for a NATO mission, and NATO has plenty of compatible tankers. And also we can always add a boom to the voyagers. You can have the boom and drogues fitted at the same time. There’s many years before the A models will be delivered.
I don’t get why people are so mad over a pretty straightforward decision. The A model is a lot cheaper to buy and run, it’s more capable, and it adds tactical nukes to our arsenal. Maybe it won’t be the perfect decision, but anyone who says it’s one of the daftest things ever just hasn’t really put much thought into it.
Why would they add a boom to the Voyagers. The F-35As will be used for conversion training to F-35Bs, which don’t use a boom, so in-flight refuelling won’t be taught using F-35As. Alternatively they’d be used for a NATO nuclear bombing run and they’d pick up NATO tankers, probably out of RAF Mildenhall a few miles down the road. They’ll exercise that way too.
The F-35As aren’t hugely more capable then the F-35B. They can’t land on a carrier for a start and we need that far more that we need nuclear bomb-dropping certification. They will be able to carry more bombs internally if they get an upgraded bomb rack, but they can’t just yet. They could, when not in stealth mode, carry more heavy bombs than an F-35B, but the RAF doesn’t have any heavy bombs. Right now, their two big plus points are cost and availability. The A model has poor availability. The B has very poor availability. So the A wins.
While I originally thought this was a terrible move, I’ve changed my mind. I still think it was a poor idea and it won’t end up being cheaper, but it has pros and cons. At least as long as they stick to no more than 12-15 planes. I’d caution those that think it’ll be easy to get more F-35As because they’ve got a foot in the door to consider dates. These 12 F-35As will arrive running up to 2033, as which time the Tempest demonstrator will have been flying for 6 years and prototypes will be under test. By 2035 we could start to see the first few of the Japanese equivalent of Tempest (Arashi?) starting to find their way into the Japanese Air Force, and the RAF will be asking when do we get Tempest not when’s the next batch of F-35A coming.
It’s an issue because choosing to randomly purchase a very expensive and very small fleet of F35A aircraft to deliver a new and off-plan capability while the Army cannot generate and deploy a credible mechanised brigade for peer warfare, the RFA is breaking, the RN has a host of funding issues and the F35B fleet is barely available due to lack of spares and trained maintainers is not wise.
Because everyone wants more of everything. Doesn’t want to pay more tax and our country is broke. There are half dozen people in this forum that are incredibly smart and the rest are middle aged men who games of RISK on their own. The harsh reality is our country is economically screwed. AI is going to be the industrial revolution for cognitive labour and the whole world economy will be tipped upside down in the next 20 years. That is more of a threat to our way of life than any war that probably won’t happen because of all the nuclear weapons.
Phew, for a second there, I thought I might have been one of the “Non Smart” ones but luckily I’m not “Middle Aged”.
The purchase of 12 A models instead of Bs is really just a means for the RAF to get their foot in the door so that they can argue that:
1. Buying more A’s makes sense as 12 isn’t enough for training and the Nuclear role.
2. The A is cheaper to buy and run than the B so will be easier on the Treasury. Hence all future purchases will be As
3. Then, we don’t have enough aircraft for 2 carriers so let’s get rid of one.
4. Then, one carrier can’t guarantee there will always be one available so let’s get rid of it.
The RAF have been trying to get rid of fixed wing naval aviation since 1918. They’ve come close a few times, they won’t stop trying anytime soon.
Ironic since 2 of the most successful RAF aircraft, the F4 Phantom and the Buccaneer, were RN choices I think 🙂
I don’t see us getting rid of the carriers. They represent a 20% addition to USN carrier fleet and arguably more than 50% of European carrier strike. They make the world a safer place. All of that said it does look as if we are headed for a larger buy of A at the expense of B. Tricky budget balancing act.
I honestly think the f35A order has little to do with common sense, our nuclear deterrent or cost effective training. It’s simply a way for the RAF to open the door to a large scale f35A purchase.. let’s be honest the RAF are not really that keen on having 50% of their future fast jet squadrons essentially tied to carrier strike.. they are quite happy leaving it at 2 squadrons, 3 at most and chaining the rest of the future f35 fleet to 10,000 feet of concrete, nice climate controlled hangers and good accommodation for their crews. For the RAF a future of 2 f35b and 3F35A squadrons would make a great deal of sense.. they have their foot in the door on the purple carriers and have most of their fast jets on land on airbases.
From the point of view of long term UK geostrategic positioning across the globe it’s a bit short sighted and really does not maximise the 6 billion we invested in the carriers.. but our 3 services have never looked at the whole geostrategic picture..just their own bit.
Hi Jim, with regards the procurement of the 35A for its nuclear strike role, I am wondering if somebody in the Government or the MOD is getting a bit windy about the failures of the last two Trident test launches? Both times, it was a case of “Nothing To See Here..”..
The RN submarine fleet is in a bit of a crisis. I don’t think we have any of the Astute class boats available at present, and there must be a serious question mark over the Tridents now..
The 35A will give us a nuclear capability of sorts, even if it’s under the NATO umbrella. Once we have that, maybe there will be a move to enable the aircraft to have a British independent nuclear strike capability for them?
How many aircraft in each operational squadron? Is it 12? So we have 8 more F35Bs on order and then we are getting 12 (minimum) F35As. I wonder what the final mix will be? 4 operational B squadrons would be 48 aircraft plus a few spares and some test airframes – let’s say 60 F35Bs total. That’s not enough to operate both carriers at once but this was never the idea. The point of having two carriers is that one is available and the other in refit.
What about the A version. We are getting one sqn to do training tasks and drop US/NATO nukes if the balloon goes up but is that enough? The small Typhoon fleet seems to be completely committed to air defence. The RAF never received a replacement for the deep strike role of Vulcan and then Tornado. With the Russians the way they are we are going to need that role revived. I’d go for another 60 F35As in four squadrons that we can base forward in Eastern Europe. That’s a total of 120 in 8 squadrons, less than the original 138 envisioned. Mind you we’d probably have to buy more as these aircraft have to last well into the 2040s. Pie in the sky or common sense?
I hope if we ever need to use tactical nukes it will be a one off exercise involving a small number of aircraft. I would say 12 is easy enough for the role they are being acquired for.
Why didn’t the UK certify the Typhoons for that role. Not stealthy enough?
I asked this on another post. With going for the F35A with its cannon will they consider the podded cannon for the F35Bs? Assuming it’s the same ammo. Just an extra strike option that might still have its use once all the missiles and bombs have been expended.
And O/T, big 114 sale of Rafales to India, so that jet can’t be half bad. Would the UK consider upgrading/ buying more Typhoons to have more newer masse sooner than getting more F35As?
A lot to unpack there, most of it above my pay grade. I applaud the French for seeing the Rafale development through. I think it provoked several budget crises. It a good plane and I also applaud their sales and marketing. The Indian order was no surprise. Typhoon as a product of the former imperial master was always going to struggle. As you say, my understanding is that Typhoon is not stealthy enough as a vehicle to deliver a free fall bomb and we don’t have a stand off weapon like the French ASMP so our doctrine aligned with reality. Now political and stealth reality have changed so F-35A and B61 are viewed, at least by the politicians, as a necessary and credible deterrent. As regarding Typhoon numbers, I suspect that now we have secured the order from Turkey we will replace the Tranche 1 Typhoons with pre-loved Spanish Tranche 2s but not increase numbers; the money will go into F-35 ( probably As) and Tempest. I’m not qualified to comment on the suitability of F-35B for close air support.
The Typhoon was never intended to be a strike aircraft, it was designed as a true fighter like the f-16. Over the years the mission creep comes in slow and ugly.
Why would 60 F35B’s not be enough to operate both Carriers at once?
Theoretically you could but the war load for a QE Class carrier would be 30+, 3 squadrons. Also, just like ships, aircraft need down time, you just can’t have them all flying around at once if you want to keep the force in being for when you really need it. Of course, all of this is rubbish because until we actually manage to integrate UK weapons on these they are as much use as Spitfires.
No?
The UK has bought the AIM-120D, which is still an extremely capable BVRAAM. In an air to air role, the F-35B is very capable.
Like to see if they could carry more than just the four AMRAAMs, maybe 6, plus extra 2cl ASRAAMs, in a beast mode in some external stealth pod.
I once asked on here how many F35B’s would be a realistic number to operate 4 front line squadrons (12 per squadron I think so that’s a minimum of 48 jets). If that was 2 per Carrier as you suggest then there would be non left for the RAF of course
Someone far more knowledgeable than I suggested a far greater number than 60.
I can’t recall the exact break down but I think it was was around the 78-90 mark -to ensure a continuous full contingent and to include training, maintenance etc.
It made sense at the time, so maybe someone (same person) could go through the numbers again?
Hi Rob, I’d be amazed if there wasn’t another future buy announced in the upcoming DIP, 12 just isn’t enough and as the NEW CDS is an RAF man then its almost a certainty that we will see another larger buy of F36A’s in the future equipment budget (we are commited to buy 138 so 64 to go).
As for the B’s the 4 test Airframes are supposedly being revamped to operational standard which would give us 62 F35B’s and that should do the RN nicely.
Fingers crossed.
I would certainly hope so, I believe the idea in the SDR 25 was to increase the RAF size and the F35A is the obvious way to do that with a total buy of 138 split across 6 squadrons with a 50.50 split of B and A models.
The treasury has not approved that yet so the easy way to get an announcement on the A model for the NATO summit was this nonsense on the OCU.
I suspect we will see the A fleet slowly build up to 60 odd aircraft.
The RAF wants Gen5 capability now, its more important to them then modifying a handful of Tranche 3 Thypoons.
I suspect we will see a further order in the Autumn defence equipment budget and a steady stream of further orders. If Tempest stalls, then the RAF will simply double down on F35A instead.
They clearly want to get to a Gen5/6 frontline by 2040
The bigger the F35A order, the greater the risk to the Tempest programme. I think it is clear that the A announcement was part of the effort to appease Trump. As a purely military decision, it doesn’t make much sense. We already devote a high proportion of the defence equipment budget to nuclear capability. Other countries in the nuclear sharing arrangement don’t.
I dont think it does appease Trump Peter, a full order of F35B would do just the same.
I do think the RAF really want the F35A and have every intention of operating a mid/ high mix of F35A and Tempest, all sown together by loyal wingmen.
The F35B probably going to the FAA by 2040.
The GCAP is a successor to Tornado (and spiritually Vulcan) in terms of its role, which will focus on deep strike (as well as air defence).
Spiritually TSR2 surely? I’ll get my coat …..
Let’s hope not.
Hi have an FOI out on just that question, the RAF are presently deciding if it’s in the public interest to publish the data and tell me or if they need to keep it secret for national security purposes.
I did write back reminding them they always used to publish the date and that by hiding it they are essentially not acting in the national interest as our armed forces are primarily a deterrent to prevent war and the 3Cs of deterrent essentially demanding you show your enemies exactly what you have and what you can do and being secretive is detrimental to national security, because it both reduces deterrent and reduces the accountability of politicians to invest in adequate defences.
I’m hoping the RAF senior leadership shows what they are made of and publishes the data, so our enemies can see what they face and our political classes can be held to account if there is an issue.
If you look at the last time they published the data our front line fast jets squadrons has 13-15 allocated to them and about 20% in the sustainment fleet but you also need 12-15 for your OCU and another 4 or so for your test and evaluation squadron. So if look at the 2015 FOIs on jet allocations the raf had about 100 typhoons and ran 4 front line squadrons with that. So for 4 f35b squadrons at a very minimum of 12 you would be looking at 48 allocated to front line squadrons, 12 to the OCU, 4 for test and evaluation, then 20% to the sustainment fleet. So 80s would do it..just.
Don’t see the point buying these, we could have loads of Tucano’s instead.
Fit them with Blue Parrot radar. Bargain!
Is that parrot a “Norwegian Blue” …by any chance?
Very good! 😂
I read that as Blue Peter Radar.
Cue visions of Valerie Singleton making them out of coat Hangers , silver foil , and old Christmas tree lights , with John Noakes being winched onto the carriers via Merlin Helicopters to fit them ‘in situ’….
They should have invested in a huge Hawk fleet.. armed them with sidewinders and jobs a good one. After all we only need the RAF to shoot down old Russian bombers.. let the European nations manage the tactical fighter issue.
Yes that’s a plan sell all our typhoons to Ukraine so they can sort the Russians out… and re open production of the hawk get 10 squadrons of those in the air and jobs a good one. 👍
Good news. O/T but several sources reporting sucessful British Army sucessful testing of Javelin on a Boxer RS4.
Christ, we’ll be using Bows and Arrows next.
Let’s not get ahead of ourselves, stones and sticks, with ‘aspirations’ of bows….
We get bows equipped for, but not fitted with Arrows perhaps.
Issue out 1845 pattern infantry swords.. they can give point as they drive by..
Life begins at 40?
Maybe 60…
Maybe 60+..
Agree 12 X F35as is not enough, as will the 61 X F35bs will not be enough either with the current expected order.
New order of another 30 X F35a Taking us to 42 giving us 2 or 3 Squadrons of deep strike / Multi role Gen 5 for the RAF available.
With another 29 F35bs giving us 90 which would give us the two air wings we need available in War for the aircraft carriers of 36 each at a push. Leaving plenty of training aircraft over as we use one A/C at a time.
We spend billions on the QEC capability.
So lets not fulfill it’s potential now by cutting the pool of aircraft it can use.
I agree with Jim.
A bigger F35A order alongside the 27 batch 2 Bs would make more sense.
As it is, a small fleet split into a smaller one, so HMG can grandstand over nukes we won’t control delivered by planes we cannot refuel.
Good evening,
We are not going to deploy both carriers at once. The point of having two is that one is in refit and the other active. Even if we had enough naval crew & enough F35Bs to deploy both we still couldn’t because we don’t have enough escort vessels. Given all of that we might in extremis do it with 2 squadrons on each carrier but that still means a total buy of 60 F35Bs is sufficient. If we are still going to buy 138 F35s then the next 60 odd should be A variants and be based on NATOs eastern flank aimed firmly at Russia. I understand that these aircraft won’t be delivered any time soon but we may well now be entering a long period of stand off with the Russians and probably a long term air policing mission over Ukraine. A force of 48 F35As forward deployed to say Poland would be very useful.
We would certainly try to deploy both carriers at once, should the need arise. 1982 was a classic example of this.
An Ark Royal full of Phantoms and Bucs was just a few years the wrong side of “doable”.
Luckily Hermes was still an option.
Indeed. One active. One not.
In extremis the other can deploy.
Airgroups don’t exist for both, and my priority has been more Merlin.
Hi Rob in reality a queen Elizabeth can cart around 4 squadrons of 35Bs in extremis, her first captain made it clear she could carry a total of about 70 aircraft if required, but even the standard war load of 3 squadrons in reality requires 4 front line squadrons to operate and 4 squadrons is 80-100 F35Bs. 60 f35b will not get you 3 reliable squadrons on a Carrier deck and will therefore cripple the UKs investment.
I can see an argument for 96 Bs in total, for 2 lots of 3×12 squadrons (theoretically fillling minimum OC for both carriers, but as 1 would normally be used at once, the ability to surge a full complement when necessary) with 2×12 in maintenance/training. The remaining 42 frames of the order then being As, for 2×12 squadrons plus 14 for maintenance and training?
It does seem unlikely that we’d procure boom refueling for as few as 2 squadrons of As, without further orders of As. But unless that didn’t cut into the NAA fleet, it would cost an awful lot more, and all while just ‘years away’ from fielding tempest. Would prefer a few new sqds of FGR4 Typhoon to the As to be honest.
It seems difficult to make any combination of A/B mix make sense between Raf and RN. The 12 As purchase just reads as a political decision without much input from pure military use perspective.
Your on a very similar page as me around 90bs and 40as seems a reasonable compromise.
Giving the option of two A/C wings in war, but having the second wing available for uk based defence and training etc and enough As to make it a longer range worthwhile gen5 multi role and deep strike capability for the RAF.
The F35a would with the typhoons will do the NATO overseas duties.
Hi Nate your not getting 6 squadrons for 96 aircraft.. that is one of the big beefs I have with the typhoon fleet dropping down to 96 single seat fighters.. you cannot run 6 squadrons with those numbers.
Even if you drop to 12 jets per squadron ( and typhoon squadrons once had 13-15 jets allocated) that’s 72 jets allocated to squadrons
Then you need an OCU for 6 squadrons you will need an OCU with 15 jets
Then your test and evaluation squadron 4 jets
That’s a total of 91 jets in squadrons.. and then you need a sustainment fleet of around 20% min so another 20 jets for around 110 jets. That’s min numbers.. the RAF did used to have more like 30% sustainment fleets.. so six squadron would want about 120 jets.
Hi Jonathan, is it really necessary to have enough Bs to fill both carriers to MOC though – can only see 1 being used at a time, so with 96 Bs that would be enough for MOC plus surge options in a conflict plus the extra requirements you’ve outlined. AFAIK 36 Bs on a carrier is optimal for best sortie rate, but with plenty of room for an extra 12 or so if there were other reasons to take more (friendly bases in the locale etc)
Surely it would be feasible to fulfil the FAA requirements for the carriers with 96, just forgoing the theoretical ability to carry a full wing on both carriers at once.
With 42 As, the RAF could at least have 2×12 sqds +auxillaries, as with just 12 they can only be used for OCU, seems rather pointless given the extra cost of infrastructure and maintenance.
To be honest I think 4 front line squadrons is fine so 96 jets would cover that need well.
Just to add – I’m talking about total numbers here, I know you were talking specifically about numbers of sqds. With total number of 96, divvied up into however many workable sqdns, training units etc it seems like it would be enough to more than fill a carrier at a time with plenty of depth if needed.
While it’s true that the latest aircraft delivered were BK-39 (ZM173) and BK-40 (ZM174), 41 aircraft have actually been handed over to the UK, as BK-41 (ZM175) was delivered earlier (on 22/6/2025).
With the latest deliveries, 41 F-35B aircraft have thus been delivered to the RAF (up to BK-41), and about 34 aircraft are notionally active with the Lightning force at Marham.
The remaining seven are accounted for as follows.
BK-01, 02, 04 and BK-31 are at Edwards
BK-18 was w/o 17/11/2021
BK-36 has not been delivered to Marham and remains stateside at Pax River.
BK-09, BK-10 and BK-11 were at Cherry Point for maintenance/upgrade (TR-3?) with the Cherry Point Fleet Readiness Center when CSG25 departed, and BK-09 is still there. BK-10 and -11 will probably be replaced by 2 or 3 more aircraft, if they have not already been replaced.
18 are deployed on board the Prince of Wales (ZM137/003, ZM139/005, ZM140/006, ZM141/007, ZM146/012, ZM150/016
ZM153/019, ZM156/022, ZM157/023, ZM158/024, ZM159/025, ZM160/026, ZM161/027, ZM163/029, ZM164/030, ZM167/033, ZM168/034, and ZM169/035).
The remaining 15 aircraft (ZM142/008, ZM143/009, ZM147/013, ZM148/014, ZM149/015, ZM151/017, ZM154/020, ZM155/021, ZM162/028, and ZM166/032) are with the OCU (No.207 Squadron) or undergoing maintenance.
ZM147/013 has not been noted since 28/10/2024, ZM151/017 since July 2024 and ZM154/020 not since 17/03/2024. Some or all may be at Cherry Point.
Really interesting data here, Jon.
Thank you.
No worries.
Was the plane that was lost actually replaced by an additional new one?
It is planned to be replaced in Tranche 2.
Hi Jon can I ask where you got the data ?
I keep an eye on the Typhoon and F-35B fleets… So from a wide variety of open sources.
Ja ja ja ja. Even you don,t believe what are you writing
Give us a clue Micki, who did you intend to reply to ?🤔
Couple of things that really interest me
When will squadron 3 be stood up ? I assume not until we start getting the next order of f35s
And what will they do with the 4 orange wires in the US and is their any plans for a UK test and evaluation squadron or will all test and evaluation stay in the US ?
T&E will remain in the US. The UK isn’t ‘trusted’ to compile its own Mission Data without US supervision/participation, let alone to do its own sovereign T&E…
One of the TES aircraft is new, the original three are being/will be de-modded at Ogden ALC, perhaps to allow them to rejoin the force, or to serve as ground instructional airframes.
For the nuclear job, I think I’d rather put a nuke in a stealthy son of stormshadow type cruise missile, similar to what was being worked on with FOAS. Sooner be 250 miles blatting away in a Typhoon than flying directly over the target in an F-35. Seems a bit less risky. Nuke only goes bang if it gets within 1km of the target parameters.
I think it’s important to have this debate in the context of the recent announcements on the Hybrid Carrier Air Wing. There were a a couple of good articles on here back in June on the subject talking eg. about the GA Gambit 5 drone as a possibility. I must say I find the idea really attractive: Imagine we had an air wing routinely deployed with around 12 F35B, 18 or so UCAV and a handful of ASW/AEW choppers – pretty damn potent. This could be flexed dry quickly in a potential limited conflict scenario to perhaps 18-24 F35B, 24 or so UCAV and a few more choppers depending on the size of the ASW threat – at this level it already becomes a more potent carrier air group than anyone can field except the US and China. In a big war scenario where the second ship is hurriedly prepped, this second deck could have a similar air group I.e 18-24 F35B, 24 or so UCAV and choppers. In this last scenario, if we accept that we have limited UK F35B numbers, we may need to borrow some from eg the USMC but if the balloon has gone up to the extent we need the second deck at sea, it’s likely this would be alongside the US anyway. A risk – yes – but seems like a reasonable one.
All of this to say that the F35B numbers debate doesn’t necessarily need to look gloomy even if we end up with not many more than 48 and the RAF end up getting a decent number of A models. Maybe I’ve drunk the cool-ade but I really do think that if the UCAV thing comes off (and unmanned is very much en-vogue) we may actually have judged this one quite well within the limited financial resources available.