The arrival of three F-35B jets means the UK has now taken delivery of 30 jets. With one aircraft lost in an accident and three test jets in the US, there are now 26 of the type in operational service in the UK.
Seven more will arrive in 2023 with 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.
Great to receive our latest three additions to the growing UK Lightning Force. Thanks to 207 Squadron for delivering. pic.twitter.com/5YAYmXTF7g
— Gp Capt Phil Marr (@PMarr_RAF) November 21, 2022
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?
The former First Sea Lord said during a webcast earlier this year that the UK intends to purchase ‘around 60’ F-35B jets and then ‘maybe more up to around 80’ for four deployable squadrons. A defence insider informed the UK Defence Journal of a live webcast given by the previous First Sea Lord.
“The First Sea Lord has just said 60 F-35, then maybe more up to around 80 for 4 deployable squadrons.”
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.”
The potential total of 80 is welcome news, given the speculation the buy could be capped at 48.
Out of interest, why is it so expensive and time consuming to integrate weapons on platforms like the F-35? It seems onerous to the point of being a national security risk.?
Because we have to slot into the US test program.
Is their test program slow for genuine reasons or is it designed that way to give US arms manufacturers an advantage?
Not much of an answer I know but both.
Goodness knows how many millions of lines of code that go into it and thats before factoring in amendments and variables from tests.
Given the number of weapons cleared for use by now. I’d imagine it’s just a matter of amending existing code
At some point in reasonably near-term future (Lot 1X?), hardware upgrades which are necessary to support Block 4 software upgrade will be incorporated into a/c baseline. Then, only Mt. Software to summit. 🤔😳
If the next weapon being integrated uses the same hardware as any of the previous integrated systems maybes, if not its a full software package needed.
You also have to model how the weapons will react when released into the aircrafts airflow and then do validation tests to see the models were right.
Because getting these weapons integrated in the aircraft is very complex. They have to be able to talk and work with all the other aircraft systems. The radar, the data link, the weapons management system. How the weapons are displayed in the cockpit,
Do they work with the Helmet mounted display ect. Aerodynamic trials have to take place so the weapon releases from the aircraft in the correct manner and no strange aerodynamic problems arise. Then add in the cost, and the politics and it isn’t a quick process.
With Brimstone in particular one presumes, as it is designed to be launched at supersonic speeds and isn’t simply drop launched it must present the need for a lot of potential testing beyond the software which as we know is painfully slow and complex to upgrade, I am presuming Spear 3 will be a little easier in those respects?
It can be launched at subsonic as well. Most headaches with long range weapons like Meteor and Spear 3 is getting the mid course guidance data link to work as advertised. Without the mid course guidance, then the weapons full potential isn’t achieved. It also requires some pretty major software upgrades to the radar. which is expensive.
Can they open bomb doors at supersonic
Yes. AMRAAM is carried internally, and can be fired at supersonic speeds.
And then the Ukranians come along and say “Missile dosen’t fit on weapons rack. Hand zip ties.”
Cant imagine it’s that complex. If the code is written properly, you just need to write a code that sits between the aircraft’s API and the weapons. I suspect the US isn’t playing nice with non us arms companies and not giving them the details of the API
Maybe so. But at the end of the day, they want to sell, and are selling this machine to Air Force’s the world, and we aren’t the only ones who have different weapons requirements from the US. And they have been doing this along time with F16,F15 ect customers around the world.
I can’t see that as being the reason, not with the UK being the sole tier one contributor to the F35 program. I really hope that’s not the case, especially with BAE Systems, working so closely with the US military
and on so many of their weapons systems.
This is a good article, includes information related to the subject in question.
https://www.airforce-technology.com/features/uk-f35-to-reach-full-operating-capability-by-2025/
Aren’t there APIs though for integration? Otherwise you’d be coding till you’re blind!
Software and shitty defence contractors who are not very good at software. F35 is the most advanced thing to ever exist on planet earth.
I think nuclear submarine designers might question that statement, but I get what you mean 😆
For sure mechanically on an SSBN but the F35 is integrated with a lot of things both other aircraft weapons and sensors. The block IV code along cost $14 billion.
I don’t think anything else on the planet comes close to the complexity of the software on F35.
Having visited the yard up at Barrow and seeing what goes on in an Astute. I can categorically state that from a system’s engineering approach. The Astute is well ahead of the F35 in terms of networking and integration.
Because of manufactured complexity. The fighter that was supposed to replace F-16 takes decades to be operational…
F-35 is not a viable program to be replicated for the future.
I wonder if anything significant from US can in the future.
If Tempest will be this complicated it will never see the light.
I remember years ago having a conversation with an RAF officer about the complexity of Typhoon. Basically, pretty much every system on Typhoon is integrated into something else so much so that making changes to one system meant lots of others, apparently unconnected with the changes made, needed checking to make sure they were not ‘upset’. At the time the prevailing view was we wouldn’t over integrate again in the future. Now that was fifteen or twenty years ago so the people with that learnt lesson will be retired I should think. The only hope that the RAF / MoD… Read more »
It is the same in you conventional car getting all the ECU’s to chat nicely. The F35B is more like a Tesla in that most if it is done on a central CPU / GPU. Whereas Typhoon T1 was more like a car with loads of linked ECU’s Each has advantages and disadvantages. The key advantages of the CPU approach are power saving, weight and upgradability. The key disadvantage of the CPU approach is reducing points of failure. With a pile of ECU’s you also need to keep each one current and retain an understanding of the software hardware interactions.… Read more »
With the multi-ECU approach, you can also have system redundancy. Where you use the same ECUs but give each a specific role. Which might be flight control, nav and weapons control. But as each talk to each other, they can also monitor each other. So, if one falls down due to a BIT failure, the others can take up the role or parts of that role.
Tempest will never see the light at all in production models.
I have every faith it will. It’s a multi country program. I can’t see Japan, Italy and the uk giving up fighter aircraft. America may have an aircraft but they might not sell it. They are going for $300million+ Per aircraft approach. In my view that’s a mistake as when it reaches production it will cost much more.
There is no other option for the uk, Italy and Japan. Typhoons and F2, F15 will be knackered by 2040.
I think that tempest is using a different kind of computer systems to earlier aircraft. Taking knowledge from the development of newer software programs and how much more user friendly and upgradable they are.
Typhoon was made when windows 3.1 was about.
F35 made when windows 95/98 was around.
The massive change in software since that time has got to make it easier. We went from playing solitaire to fortnite that can be upgraded and modified every week without massive issues.
This article at “Think Defence’ gives a very good understanding of the issues at hand.
https://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2022/11/spear-missile/
Very good article 👍
2338hrs Tuesday night (UK time).
Yes indeed an informative article, on the whole it an excellent website for the military buff/aficionado.
I’m time stamping my posts because my last couple of posts have taken 18 HOURS to be posted up, that makes it difficult to hold or to be involved with a discussion on this site – it’s quite unacceptable in this day and age.
Lack of standards, probably. Everything is integrated as a one off rather than allowing all systems to follow a general interface.
No not really, the aircraft and its weapons are designed to NATO standards. Ranging from what fuel pressure coupling is used to the AC generation voltage and its quality, i.e. MIL-STD-704. These standards are all inclusive, for example the MIL-STD-1553 (1760) data-bus that makes up the weapons data-bus. The method of the 1553 word construction, its transmission speed and whether simplex or duplex is used, is the same on all NATO aircraft, but also for the weapons and targeting sensors attached to the aircraft. As this means its quicker and easier to integrate between different aircraft and missile types. But… Read more »
With F-35B in particular, there’s also the challenge of making sure that the weapons will fit, and then fall free of the weapons bays reliably. Most of our motor-assisted weaponry these days is designed to fly off a wing rail, so its a bit more complicated with a weapons bay.
The last thing you want is the missile to a) fire up it’s motor before fully clear of the bay or b) tumble as it falls into the air stream and fire straight back up into the aircraft…
DFJ123
See this article – https://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2022/11/spear-missile/
IIRC, It explains why is it so expensive and time consuming to integrate weapons on platforms like the F-35.
I posted this yesterday … seems it got lost in the err, umm … mail¿
Love or hate the F35, it is an engineering marvel. Seeing the lift fan system work up close on the F35B is a sight to behold.
I read a few months ago that the F35 that was lost would be replaced. Also I think the plan is to have around 74 F35’s by the end of the decade.
we will see.. Anyway, good to see the new arrivals.
Yes, I believe that’s the plan. And a decision will be made in 2025 about numbers beyond 74.
It will be interesting to see how it all pans out given the Autumn Statement. I’ve seen reports that Defence will stay at 2% of GDP – given we’re probably already in recession (according to Hunt) There are likely to be some cuts coming down the line.
If there are to be cuts let it be Ajax and not F35’s (or the frigates for that matter).
Cheers CR
Problem with cutting Ajax is it leaves a 500+ size tracked vehicle hole in the army. Something would still need to be purchased to replace the worn out vehicles currently used. Also cutting the contract would probably involve paying the £5.5 billion without getting anything. If it is to be cancelled it needs to be done correctly. Billions has already been spent and I would imagine general dynamics UK would cease operations declaring bankruptcy. So that then only leaves the money left in the budget which is not much. The contract is probably a real nightmare for either side to… Read more »
The MOD / Abbey Wood are not quite the commercial caricature villains/ idiots so many on here make out. They will be giving GD enough rope and support to hang themselves if they tried to pull the plug. I’m pretty sure that various people will looked into GD-US whites of eyes. I do t think anyone will need to articulate the consequences of GD pulling the plug from a reputation point of view. The British military viewpoint is very highly regarded and is riding high on just how effective our old stock weapons and tactics are against the Orcs. We… Read more »
Getting closer to December so I guess we will know what is happening then. Hopefully
Nothing probably. It’s needed, the Army want it.
Yes, desperately needed. Most things are fixable so it should all be fine.
Next concern of mine is the cannon. Is it going anywhere else? Navy going with bofors 40mm. A good idea would be making a module for boxer with the cannon and trying hard to show it fitting into other platforms.
It could become expensive making ammo
Well, if you want to believe an article in yesterday’s Telegraph, GDUK just paid it’s shareholders a £80 million dividend???? Go figure that!
That’s nice of them. In other telegraph news I saw a headline that says the uk is shipping the latest brimstone models to Ukraine. They have double the range at 7.5 miles in ground launch mode.
I can believe it. £80m is not a huge sum for an arms supplier. What do you read into this?
Given the issues with Ajax, it’s a bit of a P**s take in my opinion. Surely whatever the reasons for the issues GDUK should at least appear to be going the extra mile to be seen to be putting things right?
Hopefully we will have learnt a lesson from this and only use established suppliers in the future.
Good to have some reality here. GDUK is not a company with a lot of money in the bank – they are hugely reliant on Ajax to prosper – I am very sure they would cease trading if Ajax is cancelled. Very hard to believe that the MoD would get much if any of the £3.2bn spent back, but don’t see that we would give GDUK another £2.3bn for no additional work.
We must get the vehicles fixed and in service.
RGT is resuming at ATDU with green crew. Most training systems are in place and handed over to MOD. REME are being trained to maintain. Validation trials of enhancements to mitigate N&V have exceeded predictions.
Thanks Ian. When is GD or the MoD going to release such info – surely they should be crowing about this?
RGT?
ATDU – Army Trials and Development Unit?
N&V – Noise and vibration issues?
Thanks for any clarification!
Reliability Growth Trials
👍
If Ajax is cut how will the army conduct recce and strike?
Solider on an electric dirt bike with binoculars and a walkie talkie.
I love your diplomatic language… likely… to be cuts?
I welcome the increase in numbers, caution over our inability to integrate our own, sometimes, better systems because of US vested interests, but, heavens, this UK administration has to go.
Finally, Brexit has to be addressed; I doubt in the lifetime of many on here it will be reversed but the enormous economic damage it has done is finally being recognised which brings me to my final point, recession will cut the defence budget, and our recession is self inflicted.
Yes people who opposed Brexit before during and after the referendum 6 years ago. Are appalled by the result of a decision they opposed have never accepted and have tried to overturn with every measure short of military coup. Shocker.
2016-22 annual GDP growth
UK 2.3% EU 1.9% source world bank
UK 2.1% EU 2.6% ”
UK 1.7% EU 1.8% ”
UK 1.7% EU 1.6% ”
UK -9.3% EU -6.4% ”
UK 7.4% EU 5.4% ”
UK 4.2% EU 3.2% source OECD
total GDP growth
UK 10.1% EU 10.1%
We get it you love brexit😂😂😂😂
Mmm… Yougov shows support for Brexit down to 36%, that’s the number who now think it was the right decision.
So not all recalcitrant Remainders then…!
Just a question, I had thought the one we had lost was to be replaced?
Wow the Uk now has 26… I bet our ‘enemies’ are not quaking in their boots. So that’s 18 somewhereorother, and 8 on the QE? The only reason I am not weeping, is because it is so farcical.
And our enemies have zero.
No they don’t… but they have lots and lots of other types is the main point here.
No. Those are just targets to 5th gen jets.
A lot of people just cannot rap their heads around that….it’s because we have not had a generational shift for such a long time or really seen Fifth generation fighters in operations against a forth generation airforce. If you told them that having buck loads of Third generation F104s would allow you to fight in parity against even a squadron of f15s or Typhoons they would laugh at you but….the change from fourth to fifth generation passes a lot of people by.
You funny boy.
Serbs vs US, m’lud. US jets were found and targeted…. even the stealthy ones.
What we need are more and the pilots to go with them. Absolutely, formidable 🙂 and a game changer.
Not today good on historical facts are you?
• Zero US jets were shot down by Serbian jets.
• Over 700 SAMs fired and yet they only managed to bring down one F-16 and one F-117.
ONLY, one F117? No one mentioned A2A.
What I did mention was that we had a formidable aircraft.
Stealthy means stealthy, and not invisible. Given the use of the F-117 in that conflict it’s surprising more weren’t lost.
Seems he forgets that the Serbs lost that war…
Many Serbs still have a bee in their bonnet over that loss.
But hey, they fucked around and found out.
Well none of them have been any use over Ukraine.
That’s because we and NATO are not at war with Russia. Our F35s have been deployed to the Baltics and Poland though.
Roberts on the right side of this argument, Davey. He’s arguing that the “many other types” that our enemies (in this case Russia) supposedly have have been useless over Ukraine.
I wouldn’t say that. I would definitely say is that the way they been employed has been inconsistent and in some cases incompetent.
What the conflict has very clearly shown is the technological gap between the standard Russian aircraft avionics, defensive aids and precision guided weapons, compared to a NATO aircraft. The other major lesson that has been learned is how the aircraft are employed, along with the amount of training the pilots receive.
But the big thing here Davey is the difference between 4th and fifth generation…no one would have ever even considered a F104 squadron would ever be able to in anyway compete with an f15 or F14 squadron…all they would do is expect them to die.
I would tend to agree. A fairly recent example is when a Pakistani F16 shot down an Indian Mig21 Bis. The Mig has had several avionics upgrades to try to keep it effective. But it was simply outclassed by the F16 and the AMRAAM. However, an Indian Mig21 has shot down a Pakistani F16 with a R73 WVR missile. The precise details of this engagement are fairly vague. As it would mean that the F16 would have had to be pretty close to the Mig, for the R73 to intercept, as its range isn’t brilliant. But in general, both the… Read more »
Davey, Robert said “Well none of them have been any use over Ukraine.” in response to which you said “that’s because we’re not at war with Russia”. My point is that Robert was talking about Russian aircraft as opposed to Western ones.
That’s an extra 26 of the most advanced fast jets ever built added to the RAF fleet. Please show us the enemy that can match that right now?
Hmmm let me see… China for one?
Oh hang on… North Korea as well?
Oh hang on… the Russian Sukhoi Su-57. How about those? 🙄
The SU-57…..you mean all 16 of them?
Russia has 5, thats five times fewer aircraft than the U.K. has F35s 😆
I wouldn’t use the Russian airforce that after nearly 300 days still does not control the skies of Ukraine, despite it’s vaunted Su-57’s, as an example Tom. Lay off reading Pierre Spreys Russia Today interviews.
Not even stealthy, it has a slightly better radar cross section (RCS) than a Rafale. Which has the lowest 4th gen RCS of the Western aircraft. A point of fact was that when the Su57s were being trialled over Syria, both the RAF’s E3D Sentry and the RAAF’s E7 could detect them easily at range. Until Russia manufacture the Su57 with proper low observable construction methods, such as wide-band radar absorbent materials. But more significantly by hiding rivet and screw lines, covered in a RAM material. Non-spherical IRST housings, hidden 1st stage compressors via an S-duct etc. Then there is… Read more »
Russian data fusion is the pilot looking at multiple screens and making sense of what on earth he’s looking at
Wait, they have screens now!
Yep they got these digital ones from Ukrainian washing machines.
Actually everything I’ve ever seen on RCS had Typhoon having a significantly smaller RCS than Rafale or other ‘Gen 4/4.5 aircaft’.
Which isn’t a surprise…both the UK and Germany had a real understanding of LO design at the time of Typhoons design. France on the other hand had none whatsoever…
Sadly not. The frontal aspect of Rafale‘s RCS is smaller than Typhoon’s. Rafale has a smaller airframe and wingspan. But crucially it is the placement and shape of the engine intakes. By splitting the intakes the lip of the splitter is halved compared to Typhoon’s. The shorter splitter lip generates a smaller return. However, Typhoon’s under fuselage central singular intake has the advantage of being better for maintaining air flow during certain manoeuvres. It is also more efficient at supersonic speeds as it provides a greater pressure differential. Typhoon could easily have side mounted intakes. But higher speed and airflow… Read more »
Well I hope you’re well paid for your nonsense posts.
Don’t think it was a nonsense post really. His point that we do not have that many is valid enough. We probably have enough already to defend the carrier strike group against a medium level attack by standard 4 and 4+ gen hostiles. We don’t yet have enough to carry out much in the way of interdiction. While the F-35 may (or may not, depending on the Block 1V outcome and other gremlins) be a technological marvel, its stealth, data fusion and SEAD capabilities look way ahead of the Chinese so far. At the same time, the B version has… Read more »
North Korea has zero 5th gen jets.
Have you even heard of Google? 🤷🏻♂️
Hi Sean,
Your posts are spot on. Can you and the other experts here give me advice as to how Australia has more F35A”s as opposed to the UK’s low numbers whichobviously are a variant being the F35B.
What is the difference?
Cheers,
George
Hi George, thanks for the complement but I’m not an expert. I simply read a lot and try to to think logically based on my science background. The U.K. is focussed on the Block IV update to the F35, which will include integration of weapons favoured by the U.K. (The F35 programme is in a state of continuous evolution and development to try and avoid past issues of aircraft being technologically outdated at their introduction due to their long development cycles.) When Block IV becomes available, the U.K. will have to pay for both hardware and software upgrades to existing… Read more »
Many thanks for the comprehensive reply Sean much appreciated
Cheers
George
Hi George, although Sean isn’t an expert he is very competent and says some very good things. Unless you want info about things such as the operation of the army, in which case you should ask someone who served in the military such as gunbuster, there are a lot of well-informed people whom you can listen to in here. If there’s an argument, use some common sense and you’ll be able to discern which side is right and wrong.
Gunbuster was a skimmer, not Army.
According to Rumour Control, he marches funny as well…
Didn’t say he was Army; said military.
Thanks, I try.
I hope I demonstrate how a non-expert with no military background, can still get a reasonable grasp of things through information that is in the public domain: in part through websites like this.
North Korea? Did you really say that! Ha ha haaaaaaa absolutely hilarious. And in that statement any credibility you may have had has just gone! North Korea…..brilliant!
Well they probably bought the totally radar transparent 5th gen fighter from Iran? It is a conceptual leap forward. The Iranians realised that if you made a plane out of cardboard it would be totally radar transparent. Similarly omitting the engines, wing box and spar reduced RCS. In a further technological leap regarding the cockpit, the Iranians realised that fitting the pilot in with the canopy shut wasn’t necessary either. But the finest innovation was the positioning of the control console, artfully redeveloped from a cutting edge arcade game complete with Z80 processor, in such a way that it would… Read more »
Ah memory serves me well, a few years back they showed their “new” advanced fighter off to the world! It was a fucking model mocked up!!! But clearly you have some insider knowledge of Irans capabilities 😂👍
There’s a couple videos of it being towed around. You can actually see it flexing under tow. I am surprised they didn’t just use their F5s as a donar, but the model is much smaller.
Yes I said North Korea… in relation to other posts, answers, questions etc, where the conversation had shifted to enemies… So with ‘hilarity’ in mind, North Korea is not an enemy?
You made a 3 post reply to yourself answering JamesD and mentioned platforms namely the Orc SU-57 zannusi special! So were you taking enemies or platforms? Actually both so please accept the fact you were picked up on the platforms comment and give the excuses a break. We all make mistakes, it’s how we ride our bang up that counts. Thanks.
Plonker!
Dickhead!
Tom, North Korea has 35 MiG-29’s, a 45 year old design, as their most advanced fighter. Their most common airframe is a derrivative of the MiG-21, a fighter from the 1950s.
I’m sure the RAF are shaking at the thought of taking on North Korea’s ancient 1960s-era air force.
North Korean MiG-21s will be just target practice.
Right you want to the U.K. to be able to outmatch China single-handed? Are you volunteering to increasing income tax to 99p in the £1? Because that’s what it would take to try and take in the worlds second largest economy and second most populous country.
Oh I said that did I? Good grief… 🙄
Yes you did by only regarding U.K. aircraft numbers and not those of our allies. And China is the only ‘enemy’ that has more 5th gen jets than us.
Not that I’m advocating it however if your talking just about defeating China in a war then the UK probably has the capability to do it now. Blockading the Indian Ocean from Diego Garcia and the pacific from the Falklands and Cayman Islands would cut China off from its overseas oil imports. The performance of China’s type 93 against CSG21 shows pretty clearly that China lacks the technology to go toe to toe with the UK outside of the South China Sea. The PLAN lacks the blue water naval capability to conduct an attack on a British base at distance.… Read more »
The two issues I would see are: • Russia has lots of cheap oil to sell and a land border with China. • The sheer numbers of tankers we’d have to intercept would exceed the RN’s fleet numbers, not to mention what to do with them once intercepted. (Assuming we detained them instead of sinking.) • If we intercept tankers flagged to countries other than China, we risk serious fallout from getting them involved. • China would reciprocate, they will cut off the huge amount of products, parts, etc that they supply to the U.K. market. While hopefully the military… Read more »
Russia has the oil but it’s stuck in Russia. pipelines across Siberia are hard to make and will take a decade or more. Very limited ability to port anything to the pacific coast as well. Arctic coast is possible but could be intercepted by British subs working under the artic ice. The near threat of this would probably prevent it. China can certainly cut the UK off from its supply of IPADs and other consumer electronic goods however most UK imports can or do come via Rotterdam first. It’s impossible to blockade the UK at a distance without blockading all… Read more »
You can’t simply ‘cancel’ Lloyds insurance. It’s down to the individual underwriting agencies whether they want to write the risk or not. I worked in the Lloyds market and my former CEO made his fortune insuring tankers during the Iran Iraq War – business others turned down. Now the government could ban Lloyds from insuring tankers, but they they’d just get insurance elsewhere and potentially cause permanent damage to the Lloyds market. To blockade goods coming to the U.K., China wouldn’t have to send any PLAN ships to Rotterdam or anywhere else. They’d simply tell manufacturers in China to stop… Read more »
You don’t have to sink a tanker to turn it around especially when you have sea control and a near by base. You just land some marines onabord if it refuses to comply. Big issue would be if a Middle East country decided to escort the tanker out however then they are potentially declaring war on the UK. Sure China can sanction the UK over parts it uses however this would require active participation from the European Union to impose second order sanctions on the UK. Again assuming the UK has some valid reason for this hypothetical war they are… Read more »
So now we’re boarding hundreds of tankers in international waters. That would be classified as piracy and I doubt and the nearest safe base would be the U.K. because I doubt anyone else would want to get dragged into this mess. Escorting your own flagged vessels is not a declaration of war. But us sinking or seizing another nation’s potentially is. The EU wouldn’t need to sanction the U.K., China would simply need to ensure that there were no grey imports via third countries to the U.K. As it has more direct control and influence over domestic companies it will… Read more »
Sorry your not paying attention to oil where it is and how it flows. Cross pacific then it comes from Brazil and Venezuela. You can’t trade it across the pacific without going through the Panama Canal or around the bottom of South America and in both instances you need to go past a UK sovereign base. All oil from Middle East on tankers transits Singapore. As for grabbing a ship mid sea one man’s act of piracy is another’s sanction enforcement operation. If you read about the blockades of the past you will see this issue was encountered several times… Read more »
Canada, USA, Mexico, Columbia, Ecuador; all oil producing nations in the America’s that have Pacific coastlines and so don’t require transit. As for oil that has to go via the Panama Canal, which ‘sovereign bases’ do you refer to that could interdict Venezuelan tankers? The likes of BATSUB isn’t going to be much use. No international and maritime law doesn’t work that way. If we started stopping all manner of tankers because we suspected they might be going to China we’d soon find other nations intervening against us, and with good reason. The likes of Saudi, Qatar, etc wouldn’t need… Read more »
The USA does not export crude to anyone it’s against the law. the only significant oil production and flow from the pacific side is Canada and I can’t imagine how we would get in to a shooting war and Canada was still pumping crude to China but it would be a limited amount and probably non due to UK financial sanctions. Some oil may go cross pacific but nothing on the level required to keep China going. No blockade is air tight it’s a case of applying steady economic pressure. UK has sovereign territory in Cayman and BVI that is… Read more »
That’s weird because the US Gov itself reports that… “U.S. motor gasoline exports increased by 11% (89,000 b/d) to reach a record of 910,000 b/d for the first half of 2022. U.S. jet fuel exports more than doubled in the first half 2022 compared with the same period last year.” https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=53999 We have British troops in Caymen and BVI, but not bases able to support military actions. Mexico produces almost double the amount of oil as the U.K. does, and Columbia almost as much as the U.K. Surprised you think that’s not “significant”… Ah so we are sanctioning Canada as… Read more »
The US can export distillates, Current crude exports ban was suspended in 2015 but it is on the verge of returning and in the event of a war would be back very fast. Any airport sea port is a military base in waiting. Mexico and Columbia produce oil but not on the pacific it’s all in the gulf and Caribbean side and most of the pipelines point that way not the Pacific way. The UK does not have to sanction Canada or any other country it would sanction the companies of that country. As I have said international pressure on… Read more »
So why import crude and then have to refine it yourself when you can import the specific petroleum products you need. Fighter they’d use aviation fuel not crude, vehicles run on petrol/diesel not crude. So long as the end product gets through the effect is the same. The ridiculous scenario being discussed is Tom’s U.K. v China alone, with no allies. Don’t try changing the parameters. However I would point out we were in the right 40 years ago but there were no Canadian, American or Australian naval vessels in the Task Force to liberate the Falkands. The support we… Read more »
China now gets a lot of its Gas and Oil via land based pipelines direct from Siberia and also since Feb 2022 (spookily) via Kazakhstans pipeline. Which in reality means they are several hundred miles from the Sea and completely in their sovereign territories. So nothing short of all out war will damage them. There is a land border between Russia and China and Oil terminals in Siberia so Tankers can go the short route around Korea. The only sea choke point between Siberia and China is between the Sea of Japan and Yellow Sea in other words Chinas back… Read more »
It gets a lot but not enough. It’s limited in how much it can or will get from pipelines as well because they are not as daft as the Germans. They are not going to rely on a single sourced supplier and you can’t just build multi billion dollar pipelines in case you need them. Most crude leaving the gulf is headed for China. I have a house on the straights of Singapore you can sit and watch it go by it’s a vast amount with super tankers passing every few minutes. Anything coming from across the pacific has to… Read more »
Is the UK alone about to fight China?
What a stupid post🙄 What enemies have you in mind?
Wot a stoopid reply… enemies, lets see… China? North Korea? How about them??? 😜
Yep we are going to shift all our efforts to the Pacific then? Or take on the magical SU 57s all on our own! So really another stupid post.
So, the UK via the Royal Navy are NOT extending its interests to the far East, and Pacific then? Oh right, so what news channel do you subscribe to? Another stoopid post… God give me strength
Tom given tripe you’ve posted here, you honestly don’t have a leg to stand on calling other posters stupid.
SU57s- do me a favour- they are overhyped junk. If they were any good Putin would have used them in Ukraine by now- instead his forces are getting spanked and all this is being done by Ukraine using NATO’s surplus and 2nd tier equipment donated. The Russian’s aren’t even facing our best kit and are getting thoroughly beaten.
In Topgun Maverick destroyed 2 SU57 Falons in an old F14 Tomcat- so they cant be that good can they?
I think he wants us to go to war, alone, against China, or the USA… 🤷🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️
• U.K. has 26 fifth generation F35Bs
• Russian has 5 fifth generation Su-57
• North Korea 0 fifth generation
• Iran 0 fifth generation
• Chinese has 200 J-20s which it claims is 5th generation, but with it having canards it’s unlikely to be anywhere near as stealthy as Western jets.
Perhaps checking your facts first might be an idea before posting?
Dohh when did I mention 5th 6th or 10th gen aircraft?? I was replying to foolish comments from foolish people in regard to what ENEMIES there might be out there!
If you’re going to ‘earwig’ or jump into posts with your hobnails on, maybe READ what’s been said before posting! 🤔
Maybe you should bother reading the article properly before posting?
It’s about the delivery of our latest 5th generation of jets – perhaps you don’t know the F35 is fifth gen? 🤷🏻♂️
Your childish post was dismissive of the number of F35s that the U.K. has, completely ignoring the context of how many fifth generation aircraft our potential enemies have.
Poor attempt to deflect away the ignorance displayed in your original comment.
Isn’t it more relevant to count NATO 5th gen jets anyway?
Or if it is China US + UK + AUS + JPN?
It is more relevant to count NATO 5th gen totals, but Tom is obsessing over U.K. numbers alone 🤷🏻♂️
You seem to be getting angry because you have been talking chuff, got taken to task over it and now trying a little bit of misdirection in your answers to Sean.
Talking shite, taken to task? Misdirection? You seem to be a lot ‘angrier’ than I, in your ramblings about… I have no idea. Whatever ‘chuffing’ comment I made much earlier in this ‘thread’, changed direction a few times since then. So, to be honest, I’m pretty lost as to what your point is.
Taking shite? Please re-read my post and locate that terminology? Anyway take it on the chin without getting defensive, you didn’t quite understand the many responses and changed your tact and time to cover the fact! Don’t worry, I’m not concerned, neither is anyone else! But the North Korea comment…..wow!
The current main combat aircraft in the RAF is typhoon. It carries the latest selection of weapons. Then the reaper and it’s replacement also join the party. What is often overlooked is actually having all the equipment required to deploy aircraft, find targets etc is just as important as aircraft numbers. Having 200 F35 is useless if they only have one squadron worth of people to get the aircraft airborne. The are the most complex fighter aircraft ever. The F35 program has encountered delays outside of the control of the UK. The main reason for the current purchasing schedule is… Read more »
There are tales of US Airforce F22 Raptors closing up to J20s and trailing them without being detected before appearing on their flanks within visual range. Leading to the J20 pilots bricking it and bugging out. I think Western Stealth technology is far superior to China’s and Russia’s because of the system integration between the physical attributes of low observability stealth aircraft and their sensor fusion. The Chinese J20 looks like it should be very stealthy- not sure in reality it is. Especially against high intensity S band radar such as the type 45 destroyer carriers or the new Eurofighter… Read more »
The big giveaway with the J20 is the canards which would increase its radar signature. Apparently it needs them due to the poor performance of the Russian export-variant engines it uses.
But I suspect the coatings etc are also probably not as good as on western stealth aircraft.
But that’s only one part of 5th gen aircraft, sensor fusion is just as important. I don’t know the Chinese capabilities here, but based on Chinese technology both software and hardware compared to western, I would expect this to be an even bigger gap than that with stealth.
Western Jets meaning Americans
Western = first world liberal democracies
Here he is? Have you got your dressing gown back yet?
Name one enemy who can put 26 5th gen fighters on a carrier and sail them anywhere in the world?
Good point. That would be none or zero or 0😂
Apparently even the USS Gerald R. Ford will not be able to carry F35 until 2025 (see Navy Lookout article). Although I think the Italians can put a couple on their carrier, along with Harriers of course.
Cheers CR
I give up… ahh none?
It’s worth saying that that is more F-35 than the US is planning to put on CVN…
Current plans are 16-20 F-35C max per carrier air wing…
If we ever get to the point where we stick 36 F-35 on a carrier it will be twice as many as the USN can manage in a full up CVN air wing…
The enemy’s of the uk may not be quaking in their boots just now. Watch that change when RAF start destroying them. The uk is not solely taking on the world. The uk is a medium country and punches above its weight in relation to other countries of its size. If your view is that the uk should be militarily able to take on Russia/China/North Korea on its own then the uk defence budget would need to be increased at least 25x for many years. So to do that the uk could stop funding the NHS, pensions, most other government… Read more »
Compared to who?
Yes but these are fifth generation aircraft it’s like any sudden jump in generational capability If your facing the new generation against the old numbers start to not matter. In all exercises the kill ratio of the F35 against even competent 4th generation fighters is huge ( so quoting up to 20 to1). If you simply cannot fight the thing numbers are just more more dead pilots. so yes 26 fifth generation fighters attached to a navy with two cutting edge 70,000 tonne carriers and all the enablers to get them anywhere is going to worry every potential enemy of… Read more »
How do you suggest we get more jets more quickly – is that even a necessity? We are not at war yet.
Certainly has been a long slow procurement for the UKs F-35B fleet, 30 built, one lost, three based in the US, and now 26 in RAF service.
For Australia and the RAAF, the 59th F-35A recently took its first test flight (about five days ago):
https://www.f-16.net/g3/uploads/A35-059-75Sq-KNFW-11-17-22-Snyder
Might see the 60th roll of the LM production line before the end of the year too.
Australia is going to be pretty upset when they have to spend billions updating all those airframes. The USA will just start junking it’s older ones but we mere mortals cant afford to junk so many 5th Gen aircraft as we are too busy paying for our healthcare.
Out of interest does the average Brit pay for or have private health care. Almost all Australians pay into a private health fund and enjoy access to Medicare (NHS).
See – Medicare.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_(Australia)
See – Health care in Australia >>> Scroll down to Health Insurance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Australia#See_also
Or not, given that Block 4 has now been pushed back to 2029 according to Breaking Defence and the cost to develop has gone up to $15.14B thanks to extra capabilities being added by USAF.
Talk about being held over a barrel. Hopefully, Tempest will be a partnership of equals…
Cheers CR
yeah – good luck with that …
Got me fingers crossed 🙂
Cheers CR
That’s for completion of Block IV. However I don’t think anyone operating earlier blocks will have a chance to keep them longer term. They will have to be upgraded both hard ware and software and your talking about $20 million per aircraft to do it.
I think we learned our lesson about co developing a fighter with the USA, we won’t be doing it again.
👍👍
The transition from Block 3F to Block 4 is regularly ‘misreported’, the way it’s reported would make you assume Block 4 isn’t happening until 2029, not true, it will ‘complete’ in 2029. Software drops are already underway.
The TR3 hardware upgrade starts with aircraft delivered next year (2023) and be retrofitted at depot level maintenance for existing aircraft.
Not all customer nations are obtaining all the planned additional weapons, eg, JSM, JASSM-ER, LRASM, etc, and the transition to Block 4 will likely be complete before 2029.
See the attacked software delivery schedule:
So us Aussies are going to ‘spend billions’ updating our F-35A? Really? What evidence do you have for that claim? And specifically what Australia will pay? Let’s talk some facts, the USA has borne the ‘full development cost’ of the F-35 program, the partner nations have contributed a relatively small amount to development, primarily in return for industrial benefits. My understanding is that the TR3 hardware upgrade will be performed during scheduled maintenance and take about 14 days (Block 4 is made up of approx 20% hardware and 80% software). Yes customer nations will have a cost associated with TR3… Read more »
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/34330/british-government-says-it-might-pass-on-27m-upgrade-for-some-of-its-f-35s Can you show me where I said Australia will be junking F35 A? It’s entirely possible Lockheed will continue to support 3F longer term but not guaranteed. We just had to junk an entire fleet of Apache as Boeing was not prepared to continue to support older versions or if they were it was cost prohibitive. You can be almost certain LM will do much the same especially once you end up with several thousand block IV aircraft + and just a few hundreds below IV. The US has a habit of junking entire sub fleets and buying new… Read more »
Jim, Firstly, yes I saw that WarZone article from a few years back, but as usual, there is no ‘official’ announcement as to cost, lots of numbers get thrown around, not many official facts though. No you didn’t specifically say the RAAF would junk any F-35A aircraft, but you did say the USA would be junking it’s older ones. Yes some of the very early LRIP lots, are probably not worth going through multiple upgrades to get to the current standard. Some I believe have gone to aggressor squadrons? The first few F-35A for the RAAF were from an early… Read more »
Good for Australia- those 60 F35As are probably the best defence Australia has against a distinctly confrontational China. Still an F35A is not as operationally flexible as an F35B- due to it being runway dependent. The F35B’s ability to deploy from a carrier or from a shortened runway with a ski jump is a great capability. The UK has now committed to 75 F35Bs in operational frontline service 9with the additional 26 already funded) a pretty decent force. The interesting point will be whether the RN/ RAF continue with F35B procurement- which I hope they do- or whether they switch… Read more »
Not any more, the RAF lusts after Tempest now.
The uk is going to maintain 2 fighter aircraft for the next 30+ years. Tempest and F35b are to complement each other.
Unless tempest is making a variant that has short take off and vertical landing or is carrier capable F35b remains very important.
I’m hoping they leave room in tempest so they can develop a carrier capable variant in the future. Much like Rafael. I can see Japan one day being interested and us covering QE class in future to CATOBAR.
Hopefully it becomes that the parts are plug and play systems and they can be added or taken out of any airframe easily.
So if a carrier plane is needed, the airframe is made and like building a pc u put what’s needed in and it starts and runs. Obviously it’s a bit more complicated than a pc but same kind of principle.
I’m kind of hoping it’s like an F4 Phantom or F18. The Typhoon was almost specifically design to not be carrier capable from day one with its configuration and Low clearance.
G’day Mr Bell, Yes the B does have operational flexibility due to the nature of the beast, the STOVL capability, I agree. But it also has a number distinct limitations and disadvantages (apart from cost) too. Much shorter range (B 1667km v A 2200km), and combat radius (B 883km v A 1093km). Shorter weapons bay, for example, unable to carry JSM AShM internally. China, yes they are the bullies and arseholes of our region, no doubt about that. By this time next year the RAAF should have all 72 ordered F-35A delivered (there is also an, as yet, unapproved phase… Read more »
The RAAF is shaping up to be a very formidable force after years of under investment. Very much hoping we can work with Australia more on aircraft development. E7 is a start and Ghost bat looks amazing although I’m wary of having anything to do with Boeing.
Yes Boeing does have its moments, eg, KC-46A and 737 MAX. But not all is crap, eg, C-17A, F/A-18F, EA-18G, P-8A. As for the MQ-28A Ghost Bat, it’s very much an ‘in country’ development program. Boeing Defence Australia (Boeing’s largest operation outside the US), BAE Systems Australia, and another approx 30 Australian based companies. One of the benefits of local development is that Ghost Bat will be outside of US ITAR technology restrictions, eg, we won’t need permission to sell to other global customers. As to the RAAF today, just about every aircraft type has, or is in the process… Read more »
The RAAF needs its F35 to replace its hornets. If we ever get to block 4 it will be interesting to see if their upgrade all the airframes, replace some with new, keep some as they are etc.
I thought they just had the super hornets that were growler capable. Good to see 12 permanent growlers.
Do they just have the F models or E as well
Mate,
The last of the 71 remaining Classic Hornets (F/A-18A/B) were retired end of last year. (We sold 25 to Canada).
And yes all RAAF F-35A will be upgraded to Block 4 (the fleet is all to the current Block 3F standard).
And yes we have separate Super Hornet and Growler fleets, originally there was a plan to modify 12 of the 24 Supers to Growler, but 12 new Growlers were procured instead.
And no there aren’t any single seat E model, Super and Growler are based on two seat F model.
Cheers,
We don’t have the same issue as Australia where they need to retire old legacy F18 airframes. UK has the opposite problem we’re going to retire T1 Typhoons with nearly half their life left.
The UK has done better than most in keeping a continuous replacement of aircraft and has pretty much the youngest and most advanced fleet of any western nation but it’s done it at the cost of numbers. The US, Australia and others have large 4th Gen legacy fleets and almost no 4.5 Gen aircraft.
Jim you said:
“The US, Australia and others have large 4th Gen legacy fleets and almost no 4.5 Gen aircraft.”
Certainly not true in relation to Australia.
The RAAF retired the last of the 4th Gen Classic Hornets late 2021.
Today the RAAF is all 4.5 and 5 Gen with F-35A, Super Hornets and Growlers.
For more on the planned additional A400M purchase see here. I’m keen to see if there is an update on the actual number to be purchased?
Well going on the budget in the article, current price and exchange rates, probably an extra 5 or 6 A400Ms I calculate.
Thanks Sean, that number seems like a reasonable expectation.
Well it doesn’t take into account inflation, though this might be balanced by production costs coming down as they manufacture more and more. Still, that’s only 6 at most to replace the 13 C130s that are being retired.
It’s better than nothing and more than I expected, if accurate.
To be honest as we’re getting rid of 13 C130 Hercules I think we should be buying that same amount of A400s.
I know it won’t, sadly.
As much as i’d like to see numbers like that retained, arguably you don’t need to replace like for like. The capability difference could make up for the numerical difference.
Does it actually, though?
Can it lift so much more than a C-130J Hercules that we need fewer of them, or will their availability be so much better that fewer A-400M can do the work the Hercs did before?
Does fewer airframes increase or reduce our airlift capability? I’m inclined to say the latter.
The A400 is an impressive machine with twice the max take off weight of the C-130J and can carry that load faster.
It isn’t perfect but, for most of the roles that it would be required to fill, it will do the job.
Don’t get me wrong, I’d rather we kept the Herc even if only for para drops and SF insertion and remove it from the cargo hauling roll completely.
The issue is more that the A400M is larger and louder so not as much good for SF who presumably have to go to use lighter civvy types for the covert insertions?
Maybe something like the C-27J could be used for SF work?
I don’t know if either of the aircraft could be described as quiet.
I’ve heard a Hercules flying over but have not had the pleasure of an A400.
Maybe a special forces electric plane will be the future. Or gravity suits.
This story will damage the narrative of no planes on aircraft carriers. Has it been approved by The Daily Mail and associated MAGA press?
The exchange rate won’t encourage any more orders for a while. Though to be honest no point in having more aircraft if they can’t sort the pilot training program out
this is now the crux of the matter. I guess better to still keep getting planes, we can still use them and distribute flight hours around or mothball if needed, but we need more trained pilots. We need to have a high-end (F35/Typhoon, Tempest) and low-end (stadardise on the BAE Advanced Hawk – with radar added in) asset mix in the RAF. The low-end asset can be used for training and light interdiction. Our training pipeline is a mess.
Forgive me if someone has already made this point.
These planes are awesome and we need more ASAP.
However, it is farcical that we have more planes than pilots to fly them.
We MUST sort the fast jet pilot training programme as a matter of urgency.
Hi Rob
I think the bulk of the fleet (circa 12-16 aircraft ) is assigned to the OCU (207sqn) in order to onboard more pilots.
I refer you to previous UKDJ articles on the parlous state of the UK Fast Jet Training Programme. There ARE more planes (F35s) than pilots fully trained to fly them. Farcical!!!
And from the Def Sec’s own mouth.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1690853/Ben-Wallace-UK-F35-RAF-Ministry-of-Defence-Sir-Mike-Wigston-Royal-Navy-ont/amp
👍👍I would not want to be Wigston. Hawk is not in his control but the problems were there long before.
You’re not wrong there. I was still working in Farnborough when a some of the guys with contacts in MoD HQ started talking about a panic that had just broken out. Someone had noticed that they (corporately) had forgotten that the Hawk T1 was coming to the end of its airframe life! I kid you not…
This was about 15 years ago!
Cheers CR
Haha. Anyone would think the people in charge should know how aircraft work.
thanks for sharing the link Rob.
Absolutely understand your point Rob, hence the majority of the F35’s being in the ocu.
We currently have 34 F35 pilots according to the Defence Minster the other week.
Which is getting close to the 1.6 per frame I’d expect?
Ok, the number is worse now more are delivered.
Well Rob it would be “farcical” if it were true, but it isn’t. Try to keep up.
You would think with all the simmering international issues of the day. People would be pulling out the stops to increase all weapons production. Especially state of the art 5th gen. aircraft. I hope there are late delivery clauses in the contracts and we save a few million quid.
https://www.defensenews.com/industry/2022/11/18/f-35-costs-have-been-declining-thats-about-to-change/
Thanks for this, it explains everything. At least from the relative perspective of the US. – So, it looks like we were partly responsible for the supply delay too. The CCP and their pandemic, have much to answer for. As the only primary partner, we really should have negotiated our own production line. At least for F35B. Perhaps when the upgraded engines eventually filter down to the “B variant”, we will think again. Hopefully BAE will be heavily involved when the time comes to upgrade our airframes. Perhaps the MOD will see sense and place an order for an additional… Read more »
Tempest and possibly drone development will decide how many F35’s we buy. I know some would say budget as well but the consequences of cancelling Tempest on the UK aerospace industry would be so catastrophic it is safe.
Yes, that is certainly the case according to every British aerospace company I can access. Also some very interesting feed back coming from neurobiologist. It seems they are spreading the love, read research grants. Far and wide.
I’m staying out of this other than to give Tom a piece of advice. You are not allowed to even think that there is anything in the world that can beat our eight operational F35’s so give up now. 😁
Let me correct your maths.
30 delivered, minus 1 lost, minus 3 orange-wire test airframes = 26 operational F35s.
Funny enough, the article states that too 🤷🏻♂️
Opinions are like arseholes, we all have one. However, opinions, like statistics can be skewed to prove a point. Good or bad, the delivery rate is pretty much going to plan, don’t see an issue. Faster and more would be nice but it’s easy to be critical from afar! Cheers
But that’s all I have ever said. Faster would be better but I get slapped down every time.. Why?
The list of kit and capabilities which need to be delivered faster is pretty much endless! However, it doesn’t happen as most contracts are tied in with, cough, a contract which is set in stone! I think on occasion we do need to be a little more appreciative of the capabilities we do actually have, of which many NATO members don’t. But o do agree, and most on here also think the same, even those capabilities we have are spread very thin or low in number. But alas Geoff nothing will improve, certainly not in the current and short term… Read more »
Indeed, faster would be better. As would larger numbers of F35B airframes, to give two full compliments for each of our carriers AND have plenty to forward deploy/disperse for the RAF. Not forgetting the longer range F35A that would be nice to have too! But I can see how sticking with the B variant makes sense. As long as the new engines currently only available for the A and C models can be adapted for it in the near future.
Geoff, did you read the very informative – https://www.defensenews.com/industry/2022/11/18/f-35-costs-have-been-declining-thats-about-to-change/
Posted to my comment by Heidfirst?
It’s funny as when you go onto USA forums some have the exact same issues. Not enough, to slow, over priced junk etc etc.
Did it take your 40 years of defence experience to come up with that one Geoff 😆.
😵
After 2010 and Harrier, Ark Royal, and 2008 and Sea Harrier removal, I’ll take the 2 Carriers and 29 jets we have.
It takes time Geoff. And until BIV is dealt with it’s not going to go faster.
Myself I prioritise getting the FSS sorted as much as more F35s.
If we had 29 aircraft on the two carriers so would I mate….or even ten on each or ten for the RN and ten for the RAF. I only have two concerns. Firstly the way that, in my opinion, we are trying to do too much with both services only having a small number of aircraft and what happens if both of them need their aircraft at the same time in conflict and secondly when are we going to order the next tranche? We now appear to have potential training problems as well.
These day’s you can’t think of it as RN or RAF requirements. They won’t have any battles about when or were we deploy the aircraft. It’s a whole force concept, bit like an expeditionary air wing. If the operational requirement needs us to deploy a carrier with F35 capability, then that’s what we will do. If the requirement is better fulfilled with having the jets land based, them off they will go. It isn’t a us and them attitude anymore. Even recently we had F35s deployed over Eastern Europe, today they are at sea. This is the flexibility advantage of… Read more »
Unfortunately I can’t see it being that simple- unless all the enemies of the UK take it in turns of course..There is a capabilty gap that only numbers will plug… There’s also the ongoing wait for Block iv to ‘allow’ us to integrate our own weapons…whats the timescales for that now?
But as the war in Ukraine has demonstrated. Enemies of the UK are also NATO Enemies. Highly unlikely we will be going it alone with high end warfare. Block 4 is 2027 timeframe, maybe longer. But as everyone really likes to moan about this timeframe, remember Typhoon had been in service for over 15 years before it received StormShadow and Brimstone integration at a cost of over £425M for the centurion upgrade.
I agree it’s unlikely we’ll be going at it alone, but even so we need to be able to do our part and provide more than a token force.
I think global operations over the last 30 years have shown we always provide more than a token force, and operate at a level only 2nd to the US compared to the rest of NATO.
Oh, definitely. I fully agree with you there.
My worry is that with the level of cuts we’ve had, especially in the last 10-12 years, that we would be reduced to a token force.
Could we realistically deploy more than a single squadron of Typhoons, for instance, to contribute towards a conflict?
Yes, definitely , we already have a sqn of Typhoons deployed operating from Cyprus, and still cover Op Shader over Iraq/Syria. Typhoons are deployed in Eastern Europe, and fly sorties from the UK. Plus a full round of exercises are still being attended plus manning of QRA North and South plus the Falklands.
Look at Ukraine and Poland… And things look a little scarce in the UK. And the tiny little Air Force isn’t really helping. And the less said about the army the better.
That is frankly, a pathetic reply.
Oh dear, the Brit Squaddies socks in your laundry is still causing you mental issues!
But as the war in Ukraine has demonstrated. Enemies of the UK are also NATO Enemies. Highly unlikely we will be going it alone with high end warfare. Block 4 is 2027 timeframe, maybe longer. But as everyone really likes to moan about this timeframe, remember Typhoon had been in service for over 15 years before it received StormShadow and Brimstone integration at a cost of over £425M for the centurion upgrade
2029 with development costs now estimated to be $15.14B according to a recent GAO report. I’ve put a link to a Breaking Defence article above.
Cheers CR
Well said grizzler. Even normal battle losses would be a serious blow to our small force, deficient in reserves. No amount of flexibility can have an aeroplane in two places at the same time. It is a weakness that any serious enemy would be stupid not to exploit. We have been lulled into a false sense of security over decades. By only needing to deal with one small poorly equipped enemy at a time. When the WWII model is far more likely as the next big conflict. With numerous foes on multiple continents and oceans simultaneously. The big threat as… Read more »
They’re already a defacto alliance and what can they actually muster? China is the only one with any real capability and the one with the most to lose. Economics aside apart from China the others pose no real existential military threat unless they’d like to initiate WWIII in which case conventional capability will not matter.
You are thinking traditionally James. Fear of WWIII limits the actions of NATO and our democratic allies more than members of the “de facto alliance.” If they were to limit their offensive activities to none nuclear weapons, while staying out of full NATO member states. Would we escalate to nukes over the loss of Taiwan, Falkland Islands, Ukraine, various territories in Asia and the the Middle East. The military minded on this site probably would say yes but the average woke PFC would almost certainly say no. CCP are producing armaments at what we would consider wartime rates with no… Read more »
Definitely. That is the key to sustaining global carrier strike operations. Those vessels should be well under way with construction, if not the first of class in the water. But we’ll solider on with what we have.
The IDF of Israel a nation of 9 millian souls, currently has 33 (called Adir) with upto 50 by 2023.
There appears to be some disconnect with UKs reality of need.
Our position is a little different to Israel’s to be fair though.
Plus, apparently, they have more access to the flight control software. Which means they can by-pass Lockheed Martin to an extent by doing their own weapons integration.
Where has that been identified – and if so why have they been given that?
Sounds decidedly poor to me- goven our ‘special relationship ‘ an’ all that.
A long read – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II_Israeli_procurement
See Paul’s comment below. Basically Israel have an even more special relationship than we do, that was worked out after we signed our contract. But they don’t have the manufacturing scope in the program as we do.
Israel has a even more special relationship than the one that used to be relevant. And it’s not hard to figure out.
Source please?
We have to pay for our own planes, we don’t get the American welfare cheque 😀
~USD 3.3 Billion per year
Some times I don’t know how US tax payers put up with such relationships. What’s Israel ever done for America? Paying all those taxes in the USA and getting f**k all back while uncle Sams splurging your money round the world on a very rich country with no security threats.
Like the UK sending Switzerland money for defence each year 😀
US taxpayers are paying their own jobs.
US money for Israel is for Israel to buy US weapons sometimes at expense of Israeli workers for example in small weapons.
US got a lot from Israel intel in Cold War and still get because of their tech. There is a reason that M1 tanks were the first outside Israel to get Trophy APS.
That is like comparing an Iceberg with a lettuce. Where is Israel’s 70 million population to support, pay for infrastructure, pay for NHS, social security, pensions, and on and on.
Israel gets funding from the USA I believe to buy stuff?
Totally inaccurate. The US does not give anything to anyone for nothing. There is always a quid pro quo. In the instance that you refer to namely the IDF of Israel, that small nation pays its way with reciprocal manufacture of almost all that it buys and then some; plus the advanced tech that the IDF has proven is transferred to the US as a freebie in most instances as well…a case in point being the Iron Dome and Iron Beam. A major difference of course between the UK and Israel, is that, that nation has no borrowings from the… Read more »
So for you Danielle, 70 millions of people is a burden implying they are unable to produce enough to have a well equipped BA, RN, RAF…
Hi DM. In NZ, we have a variety of lettuce called an iceberg – nice unintended pun! Spot on re your point of US funding to Israel . Also need to balance the fact that the Israeli navy is tiny, essentially a “white water” navy. Plus of course no Nuke subs , Carriers.
Chris, alright mate.
We also have Iceberg funnily enough, yes unintended!
I’m now one hour into your talk.
howdy DM, thanks for the ping Mate. Glad you’re still watching, the piece,It gets a little more interesting towards the end!
Never have 3 planes been more warmly welcomed! Can we persuade 3 pilots not to quit just yet for Chinese training appointments or for Easyjet transmed scheduled airlines?
Are these aircraft for 809 NAS? Don’t they standup next year?
I’d read that had been delayed.
It might be scrapped. Hunt/Sunak are in serious trouble with the markets, the UK had had to borrow record amounts from the foreign bond vigilantes over the last three months. At the highest rate of interest in the last 40 years. With the national debt at 100% of GDP the ability of the Treasury to continue to fund the extremely wastefull MoD must be in doubt. Hunt has now demanded yet another SDSR. We must all be prepared for yet further cuts in capability to pay for the Ajax fiasco – and the others. We cannot even train our own… Read more »
It’s easy to blame the MoD for wastefulness but before you go slinging too much mud I suggest you go and investigate how much money is lost to fraud or theft in the NHS each year and then wonder what the MoD might do with that money. If anyone is interested it equates to roughly a Type-26 and two Type-31s a year. Or a squadron of F-35Bs A Year. Or over the life of the Ajax project (Which finally now seems to be getting some traction) well lets say it looks like actual value for money. Anyone else feeling a… Read more »
The OECD rates the NHS as the second most efficient health system in the world. How much more efficient do you think it can be?
I work for the nhs. It could get much more efficient. Between various departments/ agencies the NHS could cut 50,000 non clinical administrative posts and save around £3 billion a year without affecting frontline care provision. Hunt is actually right about that.
I worked for the NHS for 5 years, sure it can get more efficient any system can but when you are already one of the most highly rated services for efficiency in the world it is unlikely you will find much. Cut your 50,000 administrators and save £3 billion a year and you managed to save less than 2% of your budget. Not even one years inflation costs. Now what are you going to cut next year? At some point you get diseconomies of scale on cuts I.e it cost more to find the cuts than you save. It’s the… Read more »
The way to help the NHS is to reduce the load placed upon it by reducing the weight, improving the diet, housing and family circumstances of the large number of its customers who are the drivers of the need for its services.
The thing is Mr Bell “efficient” compared to what? All large organisations are inefficient and the British tend to naval gaze and assume our NHS/MOD is less efficient than everyone else’s. Unfortunately for the doomsters, this doesn’t stake up in reality, but nobody wants to hear that, certainly not the media or commentators on this forum. They want to hear DOOM! Cheers.
How much more efficient than second place? Let me guess. It’s not fourth place, is it?
what’s that got to do with it ? Don’t deflect one shit show with another.
You know we have the second lowest debt in the G7 right? Indeed it is because we are taking action now that we have that. Everyone else and especially the USA is spending on the credit card like their is no tomorrow.
China is so far ahead of even the USA on its borrowing that it’s hard to see how it does not end in total collapse of the country.
Given China’s indebtedness that is THE big worry for the global economy.
We shoudln’t have got rid of everything to China then should we – chasing cheap mobiles and laptops.
Cheap everything you mean 🤷🏻♂️
And if one company does it then it’s competitors have to do it, or go bust…
Would a carbon tax force more manufacturing back to the UK. Is the import of resources and manufacture of things near where it is spent better from a CO2 perspective than manufacturing in China and then shipping to UK?
There should be a carbon tax for the fuel required in shipping raw materials and finished goods around the world. It would stop first world nations claiming to have reduced their carbon footprint by simply offshoring manufacturing (and this CO2production) to a third world nation. However this really needs to be done globally at a COP summit.
For sure, it’s their real weapon.
Preparations (including some building work at RAF Marham) are still progressing to reform and re-commission 809 NAS in April next year. The MOD and gov probably don’t want the bad press that postponing that would cause. But whether it will have its own aircraft is a moot point. For the commissioning ceremony I expect a couple of aircraft will be borrowed from 207 and 617 sqds and given some low profile “Royal Navy” markings. It won’t be until 2025 that the squadron will be fully operational with 12 aircraft.
Wonderful. Just the small matter of not having any pilots for them to address now. Maybe by 2050…
We have approx 35 trained F35 pilots, but no it isn’t enough. If the balloon went up we’d still be able to man all the airframes we have though. Plus put maybe 20 on a QEC. It isn’t ideal but it isn’t as bad as many make out. Only the US could do better.
Both Japan and South Korea can put more F-35s in the air than the UK.
Not on aircraft carriers they can’t.
Yes but how many Typhoons can they put up? How many F35 can they put to sea?
F35 is not the UK premier fighter it’s the secondary platform primarily designated for maratime operations.
That’s not being entirely fair to the F35 Jim. A secondary platform! It’s actually the UKs primary Strike Aircraft, for both the RN and RAF, as it is replacing both RN Harriers and RAF Tornadoes. It will be used as required, generally dictated by the operational necessity. IE do we need it at sea or on land. Personally with such relatively small numbers <74 I can see us getting into a pickle at some point….
Both the South Korean and Japanese Air forces are far more powerful than the RAF is.. and getting larger.
So what?
As expected I’ve been attacked again and yet for what? I have never once taken issue with the work being done by the services or the capabilities of the aircraft itself. All I have ever pushed for is more aircraft as soon as possible. What is the problem with that? Our people deserve the best and as soon as possible.
Have you read the article on F35 production from defensenews.com that heidfirst
posted above. LM still recovering from pandemic delays circa 150 planes to be delivered this year, across all variants and customers
I have now my friend. Very good and it certainly does answer some questions.
The full report can be found online. I’m not quite sure how we can determine the performance of the F-35 when the manufacturers themselves have not yet fully tested it. How well it actually performs against a near-peer adversary, which is something I’ve mentioned many times in the past as you might recall is still unknown and open to speculation. We will simply have to wait and see. April 27, 2022 “If DOD moves forward as planned, it will have bought a third of all F-35s before determining that the aircraft is ready to move into the full-rate production phase,’… Read more »
Wow. Some post Nigel. I’ve read bits myself about delays and so on but the problems in service and the process of sorting them out is worrying to say the least. I really don’t know where this leaves us. Do we carry on or delay as has been suggested for Block 4 and risk delays and a leap in costs? We could be talking ten years. I’ll read the full article.
Delay, clearly we still do not know if it will be fit for purpose until the arrival of the F-35 simulator which will determine its performance and reliability as I posted above. Would you continue to purchase a fleet of new cars for your business if you were aware of performance issues and reliability? or take a chance because you think all will end well and you require them now? A tricky one to say the least! A breakdown by Year development of the development costs is worth noting from page 45/48 as well to get an idea. “As of… Read more »
Sorry Jeoff, I should have mentioned it!
“Before the F-35 can be declared ready for full-rate production, it must complete tests in the Pentagon’s Joint Simulation Environment.”
https://breakingdefense.com/2021/12/new-schedule-for-critical-f-35-simulation-tests-coming-in-early-2022/
June 17, 2022 at 3:15 PM
F-35 full-rate production decision expected by March 2024 under updated APB
“The F-35 program is poised to reach its long-delayed, full-rate production decision by March 2024 under an updated acquisition program baseline that recently won approval, a Pentagon spokeswoman told Inside Defense.
Previously slated for March 2021, the new timeline for FRP comes after the Defense Department’s acquisition chief signed off on the APB last month, spokeswoman Jessica Maxwell wrote in an email this week. The latest schedule, she noted, “has an updated milestone C and full rate production…”
interesting piece Nigel. think you for posting
Mission system simulators are in service at RAF Marham.
I know you have good intentions Geoff, and I would love it if we had 74 F35’s ready to go in service today, not wait until 2030. But the timeframe isn’t going to change, even if we had a big increase in the defence budget. Mistakes have been made in the past that can’t be undone unfortunately. But we have had to start from scratch with carrier strike, and bringing somthing as complex as the QE class and F35 into service is a huge undertaking with a limited defence budget. And our service personnel are very proud of the assets… Read more »
I accept all that you say here and I am pleased that you know, to coin an old phrase, “that my intensions are honourable” So let’s bury the hatchet, agree that we both care and carry on. 😉. In the meantime have you read the post from Nigel?
Sounds good Geoff. 👍 No I haven’t seen his article. Nigel makes a habit of sharing anything negative about F35, and nothing positive, even when it comes to the jets capabilities.
👍
Understand your frustration Geoff. COVD production delays have not helped. Personally, I foresee a coin up in both order and delivers of F35 (once we are clear of the recession in a year or so) . Particularly with the upcoming retirement of the Tranche 1 Typhoons.
All we need now is to fix UKMFTS training pipeline so we have the pilots to use them.
Surely, not all are for carrier work and the forces would be better served with additional A and C variants. Either for non-maritime operations or if the carriers are converted to electromagnetic catapult launch and arrestor cables.
Hmm, converting to EMALS isn’t cheap. If you haven’t seen the article on Navy Lookout about the USS Gerald R. Ford have a look. I think it said that a single set of cats and traps for the new French Carrier was quoted at $1.5billion! The relavence is that the QEC would need a similar sized system… Add in the cost of the aircraft and the fact we appear to be cash strapped (again!) and I’d say we are lucky to be getting extra B variants..!
Sorry, meant to copy in a link.
The trouble then is duplication in spare parts, servicing etc- operating 2 separate types of the same aircraft will increase costs. I know the RAF want the A or better still C variant for issues of range and payload improvements over the C but operating 2 types will prove very expensive. A better solution is to ensure adequate numbers of B variant for carrier strike, as well as RAF tasking. The army needs a close air support option as well- we probably should look into a small single seater strike jet- something like an optimised hawk for Army close air… Read more »
Yeah it’s called a drone!
How does a drone carry what a fast jet CAS aircraft can carry?
Look it up, I believe the last report in droneWars said about 50% CAS was carried out by drones. That’s just how it is, and the future is more. Your light turboprop is the past I’m afraid.
Light turboprop? I was thinking of fast jets such as F-35s and Typhoons, which can conduct CAS missions and carry a huge weapon/ammo load.
You’ve lost me there, we already have F-35s and Typhoon’s and UAV, that’s what we use for CAS now. All of these carry “huge” weapons load.
I think thats what I said. I just didn’t claim we used light turboprops for CAS, as I knew that we used F-35s, Typhoons (as well as Apache) for CAS.
More variants more costs – spares, training pilots, training maintainers, etc.
The different variants only have around 30% commonality, so essentially different aircraft.
Conversion to cats and traps is expensive, HMG briefly looked at buying the C then was out off by the horrendous costs. Plus there are advantages with carriers operating B over the C; pilot training is easier, operational in higher sea states, redundancy, etc.
This subject has been done to death over the years on here.
26 in operational service is great news. If true and a further 7 are about to enter service bringing the number up to 32 that is great news. Once we have 32 in service it means delivering 24 for a QE carrier airwing becomes a viable option. Has the construction schedule been shifted to the left eg quickened due to war in Ukraine? I thought all 48 initially committed too weren’t going to be in service until 2025. Also a further 26 have been funded – the MOD needs to ensure these are coming on line asap (within 2-3 years)… Read more »
OK I’m Mr Bell, I’m afraid I’m going to rather rain on your out burst of optimism. LM were talking about delays to the Block 4 software release earlier this year (I think).
This article from Breaking Defence suggests that Block 4 might not be available until 2029, in part because the USAF have added in some extra capabilities. That means the rest of the customer base will have to wait, and pay, for the upgrades..! Sucks dun’it.
Please don’t shoot the messenger!
Cheers CR
G’day again Mr Bell, The upgrade from the current Block 3F to Block 4 is not reported accurately by the media (both the general and defence media). It would be easy to assume Block 4 won’t happen until 2029, that’s wrong, it’s already started and will be ‘completed’ in 2029, Block 4 is approx 20% hardware and 80% software. The TR3 hardware upgrade starts with the next new production lot (2023), existing delivered aircraft will be retrofitted during depot level maintenance, reported to take approx 14 days per aircraft. Some of Blk 4, eg, aircraft sensors, is for all customers,… Read more »
I read in the below link that 809 NAS is the next squadron to workup on the F-35B, in Q2 2023. I wonder if this means 809 will focus more on carrier operations and 617 more on land-based, or will the Lightning force remain a truly ‘joint’ operation and the squadron numbers be purely token gestures to our past? I guess with the, still, relatively small numbers it makes sense to remain ‘joint’.
https://www.airforce-technology.com/analysis/uk-f35-to-reach-full-operating-capability-by-2025/#:~:text=The%20Royal%20Navy%27s%20809%20Naval,Royal%20Air%20Force%27s%20617%20Squadron.
It will remain truly joint. Deploying jets to meet the operational requirements. Be that at sea, or land based.
‘If’ we get to 4 sqds 2 RAF and 2 FAA the FAA will provide the normal airgroup and the RAF will provide a surge capability. A bit like what happened in the Falklands war with Sea Harrier and Harrier. Plus then you get into size of sqds. The RAF seem to have settled for 8 aircraft per frontline sqd. Have heard different reports as to RN some say 8 in 2 sqds some 16 in 1 or 2 which would obviously make a big difference
The RAF plan on squadron sizes of 12-16. It was originally 4 squadrons of 12 but it was announced along with the 26 extra F35Bs that it would be 3 squadrons of 12-16 aircraft.
Thanks. Should have stuck to Navy Lookout. USN/USMC Sqds will have 10 F35’s each.
RAF/RN sqns will deploy equally at sea and on land based deployments. The RAF sqns are not surge capability. The whole force operates as one pool of aircraft, and are moved around the sqns as they are required.
How much does 1 of these toys cost?
An F-35B is the dearest version & is over $101 million atm
Bit off topic but Turkeys making progress on their next drone. Quotes carrier capability also.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/turkeys-fighter-like-drone-emerges-for-taxi-tests
Have to wonder how long Turkey can keep pouring money into its military given its staggering inflation rate of 85%
I believe Erdogans son runs the company so perhaps explains why it gets the money.
Let’s hope the UK’s enemies are nice enough to wait for the build up to produce a significantly sized force.
The current 8 ship deployment on QE is an embarrassment. Insufficient to provide self defense let alone any offensive capability.
Do keep up🙄It’s a training deployment NOT war fighting,if you had bothered to read this thread and others you would of course seen all this discussed!
Ah the man that pretends to be an ex-RAF pilot. Fantasist.
So embarrassing.
Russia would crush us with their thousands of F35s…
Ah complacency. Always rewarded so well.
Many more may have agreed with your statement before the Ukraine war. Now we can see that the Russian air force is awful. Our Typhoons and F35s would handle them on their own.
Now China is the real issue. We don’t have enough F35s to send a QEC carrier group into the Taiwan strait if things turn nasty. We’ll have to welcome USMC onboard to make it viable. This will change in 2 to 3 years though.
Ah yes complaining on an online forum. That’ll speed up the F35 build rate.
Why don’t you send an email to Mr. Lockheed himself asking if you personally could build some F35s. I mean how hard could it be?
Lockheed is building them fast enough old bean. RAF not buying them quick enough is the issue. Do keep up.
Thing is there is the farcical issue of block 4, we could buy more now but they’d be limited in capability.
If block 4 was rolling out now I’d be all for rapidly building up numbers.
What we don’t need is a large expensive fleet that’s fitted for but not with most of what we need to be fitted. Then we pay through the nose again to upgrade them.
The whole programme is a shit show. It might result in a fantastically capable aircraft but waiting 10 bloody years from introduction to reaching that is a disgrace.
when does the fleet air arm get / raise a squadron?
It’s not my expertise so I will ask the question. “Why, if the UK gets 48 F35B’s, are the next lot the more capable F35A? With the numbers, both carriers will have 24 each and if the UK can get USMC to commit 6/12 per carrier there would be more than enough naval cover. The far more lethal F35A would then be better assigned to the RAF?
Because 48 aircraft would probably allow a maximum of 15 per carrier.
74 should allow for 24 per carrier
Because it’s essentially a different aircraft and you would end up with a fleet within a fleet.
the F35 B ends up being the far more capable aircraft because it can take off and land on a runway that can be in anyplace across the globe, it can hide and is hard to strike on the ground ( the biggest weakness of any airforce). The F35A will always be chained to a small number of airfields, that will limit its strike ability and make it vulnerable.
The United States Marines do not give a rat’s ass about the UK. And they are not designated to go there I’m if it’s convenient yes if not you’re on your goddamn own. Not sure where this fantasy thing from the UK came from that the US is going to supply your air group.
Oh dear, yet again your lack of military service and knowledge have made you look sad and silly, but also your hatred of the Brits needs to be addressed….speak to Mrs Esteban, ask her where the British Army socks came from? And why she has a 2 Para Mortars plaque on the wall…..just ask, it will be ok.
Great news. Far to good for our enemies
OT but significant….sub hunters or commando carriers?
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/uk-to-send-manned-helicopters-to-ukraine-7pdhgqmr7
Sea Kings ex SAR
Thx. Strange that we did not arrange to get them some more plentiful Mi-8s
Officially SAR but all the media are ‘informed speculation’ they are actually ASW equipped.
Source please sense the never were in the first place at least these aircraft.
They were all Has.5 converted to Hu.5 type.
XV666, XZ920 and ZA166 are their registries.
How many times in a speech can one say “48”?
There’s a joke in there somewhere.
Wondering when the FAA squadron is operational?
809 NAS will stand up in 2023 but not considered deployable until 2025. So not enough F35Bs or pilots until then. This was confirmed in Sept just gone.
Wow NSM on all T45 and T23, must be Christmas.
https://www.navylookout.com/royal-navy-to-buy-the-naval-strike-missile/
Or April fools 😀
Read that again.
Frothy froth! 👜
So at a pinch we get two squadrons on a carrier in a national emergency, much like 1982. No change in numbers but a quantum leap in capability
Why is the uk going for the approach of ordering only 48 f35s then ordering more later compered to much smaller countries like Finland who have order all the f35s they want that being 64? Is it cost related if so how can a country 12 times smaller than the uk order more at once or is it something else like integrating systems?