In a recent exchange in the House of Lords, Lord West of Spithead sought clarity on the projected inventory of F-35B jets in the UK by mid-2025.
He asked, “How many F-35B jets will be in the UK inventory by May 2025?”
Responding on 29th October 2024, Defence Minister Lord Coaker confirmed the anticipated number, stating, “It is anticipated that the UK will have 41 F-35Bs on inventory by May 2025.”
This update aligns with the Ministry of Defence’s ongoing efforts to meet its fleet expansion goals.
Recently, we reported that by the end of 2024, the UK will have acquired 37 of the first 48 F-35B aircraft batch.
In a recent parliamentary exchange, Labour MP Luke Akehurst sought details on the progress of the UK’s F-35B procurement. His question to the Ministry of Defence, dated 12th September 2024, asked:
“To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, how many F-35B aircraft he expects his Department to have taken delivery of by the end of 2024.”
Responding on 8th October 2024, Luke Pollard, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence, provided the following update:
“Against the current schedule, it is projected that by end of calendar year 2024, the UK will have taken ownership of 37 F-35B aircraft.”
We recently reported the arrival of more F-35B jets, which means the UK, as of today, has 34 stealth jets. With one aircraft lost in an accident and three test jets in the US, there are now 30 of the type in operational service in the UK.
There is an expectation that all of the 47 in the first batch will be delivered by the end of 2025. Note that it would have been 48 if one didn’t crash.
After that, the Ministry of Defence expressed the intention to purchase another tranche of jets. Funding has been delegated for an additional tranche of F-35B jets for Britain beyond the 48 already ordered.
Jeremy Quin, then Minister of State at the Ministry of Defence, stated last year:
“Funding for a second tranche of F-35 Lightning has been delegated to Air Command as part of our recent annual budget cycle. Funding for Atlas A400M which not yet been delegated. A decision on future tranches of F-35B will be made in due course.”
For more on the planned additional A400M purchase see here, now, on to the F-35B.
“As you know, we are going to acquire 48. We have made it absolutely clear that we will be acquiring more. We have committed to have 48 in service by 2025, and we will be acquiring more. We have set that out in the IR. We will set out the exact numbers in 2025.
The 138 number is still there. That is a defined number and we are looking at keeping these aircraft carriers in operation for a very long period of time. I am not dismissing that number either. We know that we have 48 to which we are committed, and we know that we will buy more beyond that.”
How many are expected?
According to the Defence Command Paper titled ‘Defence in a Competitive Age’, the UK intends to increase the fleet size beyond the 48 F-35 aircraft it has already ordered.
“The Royal Air Force will continue to grow its Combat Air capacity over the next few years as we fully establish all seven operational Typhoon Squadrons and grow the Lightning II Force, increasing the fleet size beyond the 48 aircraft that we have already ordered. Together they will provide a formidable capability, which will be continually upgraded to meet the threat, exploit multi domain integration and expand utility.
The Royal Air Force will spiral develop Typhoon capability, integrate new weapons such as the UK developed ‘SPEAR Cap 3’ precision air launched weapon and invest in the Radar 2 programme to give it a powerful electronically scanned array radar. We will integrate more UK weapons onto Lightning II and invest to ensure that its software and capability are updated alongside the rest of the global F 35 fleet.”
Too much hot air just let us order them and stand up 4 frontline units (12 per) and the OCU so there is always enough to go to sea and also support land ops. Thats a minimum. The UK makes money on each and every F35 made so we get back a lot of the cost anyway which many others don’t come close too. Action speaks louder than words.
Very true! We need to get on and order another batch with the ultimate intention of acquiring 138 over a longer period ASAP, including gun pods. The US made the mistake of thinking they didn’t need guns back in Vietnam era and were proved wrong.
100% agree about getting the gun pods as it shows real intent and way cheaper than missiles and cant be countered either. SHAR’s had them and although not so accurate scared a few when they saw them splashes coming close. GR7/9 didn’t and the Taliban just stood there.
What are you going to be getting close enough to with a really expensive 5th generation aircraft to shoot with a cannon?
If there are enough 4, 4.5 or 5th gen fighters coming at you Jim you’ll soon run out of missiles to fire at them and that assumes all missiles hit their targets successfully. True, if you’ve expended all your missiles at reach you can get the hell out of their before they get to you. Then again, if we end up with a scenario like the US had in Vietnam, obtain visual identity the target has an enemy roundel then, the defensive reach is all but eliminated, is it not? I’m no expert but the very arguments that are put… Read more »
No you don’t, in modern air combat if you run out of missiles you run away or you die very quickly. You will never get any where near an air craft to use a cannon.
Visual ID can also be done very far way nowadays, well outside of cannon range.
Lessons from Vietnam are about as relevant as lesson from the western front bi planes.
These are not destroyers defending some fixed point that’s not how air combat works.
drones do change the mix a lot..4-5th gen fighters are not attritional units..if you could kill say 4 at beyond visual range you have mission killed the flight/squadron. Someone throws 20+ cheap attritional drones at a target you’re defending you need to kill all 20 with something cheap…because you may also have to still fend off that flight of fighters.
Drones have recreated the mass attrition low tec world that existed in WW1 WW2. So the only real answer to that is guns.
Totally Agree.
Agree – one moderate complaint of the F35B is the limited internal storage space. In the Pacific the USAF is giving the F-15 another new lease of life with the EX version which, according to the wiki, in principle can carry 16 x AIM-120; 4 x AIM-9; and 2 x AGM-88 HARMs. The F-35b only has 4 internal hard points + another 6 externally if one is willing to compromise on stealth, with ASRAAM only capable of being carried externally. Can’t help thinking in a high-end peer-to-peer fight they would run out of missiles rather quickly.
I agree, though I’d imagine that we’ll use the F-35s as spotters and our Typhoons as missile trucks; the Typhoon could comfortably carry 10-12 Meteors plus fuel tanks.
In an air to air scenario I’d see F-35s targeting enemy AEW aircraft to hamper their situational awareness, then Typhoons coming in with 10+ Meteors each to smash enemy combat aircraft.
That’s certainly the ideal and the current plan I’m sure. The US’s latest air to air missile is specifically targeted at taking out any AWACS and similar assets as much as fighters. Especially when employed on a stealth platform.
In which case they are told to scoot using its stealth to its advantage, while getting in a gun battle is putting itself in its worse possible scenario. In a recent trial ut was taken out by a Typhoon in such a scenario, it’s simply not designed for it, even Tempest is unlikely to be aerodynamically tuned to dog fighting and air superiority is its primary job. Most recent images suggest a wing best suited to give it legs and internal weaponry storage, similar to that designed for the F-22 Strike version that never happened.
And a 5th gen stealth fighter that has barely 4 seconds of ammunition is not the answer. If you’re thinking about that, Hawks with a quartet of FN HMP gun pods is a far better option
Yes and that 4 targets engaged that would not otherwise be engaged.
He said 4 seconds though not automatically 4 targets taken out which would be speculative at best. In an ideal world it would be great to have the option true but its utility is barely of use in reality. The only possible scenarios I see real potential is last ditch carrier defence against drones but surely planes flying around in that role will actually get in the way of other better fleet options, after all any drones in that scenario are likely to be quite large and better taken out by, missiles guns and in time lasers. No coincidence that… Read more »
Works both ways of course meaning close in ground attack or strike is even less likely to bring an expensive jet into direct conflict or with a manned foe in the air where it would need to use its gun. But yes that very scenario you mention in taking out drones is the only one that really makes sense. Though I would expect in nearly all scenarios that is a job for Typhoon et al rather than an F-35 but I accept having the capacity could be occasionally useful in emergencies especially when operating from the carriers so the ability… Read more »
The only lesson I would take from Vietnam in this regard is that ground attack is pretty much a suicide mission even then, if it wasn’t then it certainly would be now, the risk far outways the potential benefit in the age of drones. Air to Air, at the speeds modern jets operate at and the relative lack of manouverabilty of the F-35 it would be a Guinness Book of Records territory esp as it’s well known that advice for F-35 pilots is that if you have expended even your longer range missiles scoot out of there virtually no chance… Read more »
In reality no formation of aircraft is going to push through losses, 4 and 5 gen fighters are not attrition units, even if say Russia throws 12 fighters at you…kill four at beyond visual range and the others are leaving fast not pushing towards to the target.
Drones, swarms of cheap as chips attack drones. Before cheap attack drones became a thing, you would be quite correct in asking what would you fire your gun at as you will be killing your apponent opponent at beyond visual range…but now everyone and their mother is throwing cheap attack drones around.
But again how likely would F-35s be used in that scenario big drones are best taken out by a missile or laser a small drone swarm by almost anything preferable to an F-35 with a gun pod which would mean it’s been specifically fitted out for just that job. Just doesn’t make sense as someone said fit out Hawks to do that in an emergency or Typhoons in emergencies not your prime stealth strike fighter of which you have very few to do all it’s usual jobs.
Can’t do warning shoots with Missiles Jim .
A warning in what scenario? You would need great anticipation to work out when to fit your gun pod for such a unique situation, as why would you fit gun pods to F-35s as a standard fit it just doesn’t make sense and money better spent. Better to employ a Typhoon surely if you can anticipate such a need in a given scenario.
You beat me to it. Air to air that close it would be outclassed by almost any current adversary. Ground attack? Has the US made any decision as yet about it replacing A-10s as originally planned. Last I heard a couple years back it a US committed deemed it not capable of doing so and questioned even with the proposed upgrades whatever they were that it was doubtful it would ever take over such a role. Fact is if the US deems such a valuable asset doing that job is deeply questionable we certainly wouldn’t be considering it. Not sure… Read more »
220 unguided rounds in a pod that has had a number of problems isn’t going to achieve very much either air to air or air to ground. The Sea Fury carried @ 600 back in 1947!
Yes and I remember reading some of the reports from some of those pilots it was a terrifying mission to undertake as it was for US pilots in Vietnam. Suicide now and if you are using F-35s for that the war is likely already lost.
Brimstone or Spear weren’t a thing in Vietnam and we aren’t going to do counter insurgency any time soon.
Standoff weapons are the way now.
I wasn’t thinking of ground attack, more air to air including taking down drones. It was wrongly believed once before that all air to air engagements would be missile only…….now all superior Fighters have guns including US F35s
Drones is an issue but getting down low and dirty to shoot down Shaheds at their cruise altitudes and speeds is going to kill combat radius.
We really need a really, really cheap WVRAAM.
IR Martlet drop launch, anyone?
Like that idea. Even laser designated would work surely…assuming the planes have a built in ir guidance unit.
Is Brimstone capable of targeting slow moving air targets?
AA
The guidance is a laser code being emitted of some sort (LMM and StarStreak guidance has always confused me, would greatly appreciate if someone elaborated) so an F35 ought to be able to do it. The problem would be SACLOS where both ends of the beam are moving because of the speed of the jet. Thales keep claiming that the Martlet is multirole and modular, prove it by changing the seeker head and adding new launch options. Doubt Brimstone has the turn rate for air targets, don’t know if it can lead the impact point so it would turn into… Read more »
Brimstone and Spear-3 have dual active radar and semi-active laser homing (SALH) seekers. The SALH like semi-active radar homing (SARH), relies on the reflected energy “bouncing off” the target. In the case of SALH, a laser designator that uses pulse coding is aimed at the target. The laser bounces off the target. The seeker detects the laser, but then sees the laser as valid, as the coding matches what has been set in the missile. Starstreak and LMM work differently. They use semi active command line of sight (SACLOS) guidance. Which means that the guidance and tracking unit measures the… Read more »
Oh, that makes sense.
How does it work for StarStreak with three guided projectiles? Which then have a single moving part, as far as I can tell?
The brains for the dart is really the guidance and tracking unit. By measuring the delta between the grid and where the guidance unit sees the dart. In simple terms it tells the dart to steer to get within the grid. This can be used for leading the target if it’s crossing your path or for a tail chase. The guidance unit controls each of the three darts separately, ensuring they fly parallel to each other and separated by 1 to 2m. Wiki does allude to a slightly more complex method of guidance, which is sought of correct. Whereby the… Read more »
That last bit is the thing I am confused about
How do you angle fins so that one set of canards can both spin themselves and turn the missile?
Is there a motor spinning it that turns off when told to?
There is no motor. The forward body spinning is caused by the airflow. Although I never noticed when training with the missile. I’m pretty certain that the canards will have a fixed positive angle of attack. I’m trying to picture this, but I believe as the forward body spins freely the effect on direction is evened out, thereby keeping the dart on track. As soon as the clutch activates. The canards intact a positive vector against the airflow, thereby causing the dart to turn. As soon as the clutch deactivates, the dart’s forward body begins to spin again. Thereby negating… Read more »
So how do the canards manage that?
How do you cause both a spinning action and a turning one with just two fins?
That’s why I thought there might be a motor. Then you could have the canards at the same orientation so the turn balances out when the motor is on, and then has a continuous turn when off.
How the heck do you work with STARStreak, and as a JTAC, and be an expert on naval missile defences and AEW?
I did 32 years worth of service, not all with the same service. As such I got to play with a lot of kit. From memory and a few videos. Starstreak when it comes out of the tube spins. After a few seconds the rocket and carrier dispense the three darts. These still have the inherent spin. But the fore-body spins at a faster rate. The only way it can do that is if the canards are set with opposing angles of attack (AoA). Which would kind of negate the means of causing the dart to turn, when the clutch… Read more »
I think it must be that the canards have different AoA.
There’s no other way of doing both spinning and turning at the same time.
Thanks for an excellent set of explanations, always grateful 👍🥳
That is simple but genius. Thanks for all your information on this and explaining it in a relatively straight forward manner.
It was wrongly believed that all A2A would be missile-only, but that was in Vietnam, around 50 years ago.
Missiles and radars now are far more advanced, with a much higher probability of kill.
Other than killing drones or taking on a soft target of opportunity e.g. transport aircraft, I can’t see of a realistic scenario where an F-35 would be using its guns.
The strange thing is that the US with Chinese balloons and the Russians with their faulty stealth drone both used missiles to down them when one might have thought (esp the former) a gun would have been the better option.
Even in GWOT, Gun runs were not typical. Most Air support came from missiles or Paveway.
GWOT?
Gulf War Op Telic?
Global War on Terror.
http s:/ /en.wikipedia. org/wiki/War_on_terror
Oh, makes sense
Thanks for the quick reply
No problem!
I called on both A10s and Apache for gun support, whilst as a JTAC in Afghan. The gun was preferred on certain targets. Though with the A10 and Apaches there was usually a choice between unguided rockets or the gun. Hellfire and Mavericks were generally only used against hardened or pin point targets. Though I did see a Maverick used on a spotter using a motorbike. A lot of targets were in long thin tree lines. That could be the length of a football pitch. Both the gun and rockets could be used. But rockets have a wider dispersion, whereas… Read more »
This is fine against an enemy like the Taliban that has zero air power or ground-based air defence, though.
Against an enemy that has either aircraft, GBAD or even decent MANPADS, you’re not going to risk an F-35 on a gun run.
Totally agree, Afghan was very benign for aircraft. The main threat was small arms and RPGs, especially to helicopters. You would never expect something like the AC130 to operate in the Ukrainian war. It would be a suicide mission for the crew. Stand off weapons are the order of the day for that war. Plus both Russia and Ukraine have demonstrated drones to be highly effective against troops operating in tree lines.
Yes but if you are defending against cheap mass drones..you need a cheap high mass weapon and that’s never going to be any missile even a cheap one. Guns are the real answer to mass drone threats.
F35 gun pods aren’t a high mass weapon either on a flight by flight basis. The number of rounds carried simply isn’t enough to shoot down lots of drones in a single mission.
The ideal weapon would be some sort of airburst 40mm high velocity grenade launcher with small cartridges so lots can be carried and proximity fuses to reduce the number needed in an engagement, but that doesn’t exist so a small light missile is the most feasible solution.
The other thing is, the kind of drone that can reasonably target a fighter is not cheap or available in mass. A FPV drone is more of a static object to dodge than a threat that can credibly target something like an F-35.
Exactly, armour piercing 27mm rounds are close to useless but then so is a Mach 2 capable hundred million dollar fighter when chasing cheap drones.
That’s what developing new missiles is for
So that you can buy a new missile specifically for shooting down drones rather than a new hundred million dollar fighter.
Modular, innit
I imagine there must be much effort being placed on drone jamming technology as well?
ADEN pod fitted for XM1223 perhaps?
Pretty much, yeah 👍
Grenade launchers of that type have been trialed in the past haven’t they, indeed I know the Russians tried it in the past or was it mines with a similar function, but seems they never really caught on.
I imagine there must be much effort being placed on drone jamming technology as well?
Where do these drones come from? If from other aerial platforms, the idea is to down those planes before they know you are there, so they never launch the drones in the first place. If from ground launch, the idea is to destroy the launch points, SEAD/DEAD. Given that this strategy relies on stealth, degrading the F-35Bs’ RCS with a gun pod could well be counterproductive. The F-35 cannon has 220 unguided rounds (in the pod version). How many would be needed to take out a drone. perhaps if there’s AI targeting and very little distance it wouldn’t take that… Read more »
Hi jon yes but large drones have a long range a Shahed 136 has a range of 1600 miles and can be launched from almost anywhere so your not getting the launch vehicle. Also a Shahed is a big slow predictable target. Remember a Russian fighter knocked out a U.S. heavy U.S. drone by tapping it so moving into gun range and knocking it out with a cannon is not a problem. These unmanned aircraft fly strait arms level at a couple of hundred miles an hour, they are very very basic targets. as for DEW, they are simply not… Read more »
Fair point. I was considering threats to the aircraft rather than using the planes to intercept ground-strike drones and loitering munitions. I concede that F-35s with a cannon could take those out. I’m still not conviced that the F-35 is the best solution. The cost of simply launching F-35s (c $50K+ per flying hour) could be a lot more than the cost of a cheap drone. The Saheed isn’t cheap, costing more than a cheap missile so I’m not sure that it falls into your original premise. I agree the F-35’s gun could take them out cheaply if the planes… Read more »
I don’t think flying a 80m£ aircraft low and slow enough to detect and engage a small drone with a gun that makes the aircraft more visible on radar in an environment that has any sort of IADS active is the answer.
Totally agree, you don’t want to fly a stealth aircraft around with a gun pod unless at best it were being used for the specific mission of taking out drones, a bit embarrassing in itself if you are in that position except perhaps arguably on a rare occasion from a carrier. It would indicate serious deficiencies elsewhere. The other problem of course is that smaller drones are very difficult to detect certainly until very close, so when would even an F-35 be especially useful for such dedicated missions. Far better to have as many ground based platforms that are coming… Read more »
Yes, but unlikely to be those fitted to aircraft. Old fashioned AA systems with their own radar, 27-40mm with either time or proximity fused ammo. Either dedicated vehicles like Gepard, or add suitable sensors to existing vehicles that already have suitable guns or add on RWS like Slinger that can be added to most military vehicles. Ground based lasers are also way easier to power & aim, as a potential alternative.
That was 60 years ago, things have moved on 😀
Indeed. And even the “Gun’s where needed to solve the problem” fighter plane mafia was possibly overstated. Navy F4’s where slower in getting the gun upgrades than the Airforce ones, and they also saw improving kills rates even without the gun’s added. Anyway, this is something I’m not really expert in, but I’ve seen plenty of claims that the issues in Vietnam where more about doctrine and training, rather than the presence of a 20mm cannon on the F4’s.
Hi Mate, I think it largely depends on the type of “dogfight”. Sea Harrier Sidewinder demonstrated how effective missile can be, and that was only shortage visual range. Your comment re doctrine and training is spot on, coupled to the poor reliability of early generation missiles.
The 138 may yet be ordered but over the lifetime of the aircraft life ie over 25 or 30 or 35 years and new tranches of aircraft will replaced older tranches. Don’t ever expect there to be a moment in time when we have all 138 in service together.
But that 138 figure has been around for a very long time.It may be reduced.
👍
The lesson from Vietnam wasn’t that guns were needed, it was that missiles need to be maintained correctly, pilots and ground crews need appropriate training and the rules of engagement need to be considerate of the aircraft being used. RoE in Vietnam required visual identification of enemy aircraft, at which point Phantoms were at a disadvantage. If they were allowed to play to their strength, they’d have faired much better. US Navy Phantoms never had a gun in Vietnam, yet performed better than their USAF counterparts. It’s important to remember, the Phantom and the missiles it used were created closer… Read more »
I fully agree about the numbers of jets. 4 squadrons of 12 (48) plus an OCU (8-10), the OEU (3) plus a decent number of spares… I’d say we need around 85-90 aircraft in inventory, with the remainder of the 138 coming to replace older airframes in years to come. I disagree on guns, however. The F-35 is a £100 million Gen 5 aircraft; if it runs out of missiles it’s going to be returning to base. We’re not going to risk such an aircraft in a guns-only battle, and in modern air combat an F-35 with guns could still… Read more »
One hunred per cent right Angus. Sooner the better.
“We recently reported the arrival of more F-35B jets, which means the UK, as of today, has 34 stealth jets. With one aircraft lost in an accident and three test jets in the US, there are now 30 of the type in operational service in the UK“
I take it this should either read 4 in the US or 29 in operational service in the UK?
Or, is the government claiming that the wet one is operational? 🤪
The ambiguity and inaccuracy of the language used to report on the number of UK F-35B is a source of constant frustration to me. If the UK “has 34” that shouldn’t include the crashed plane as it only “has” a set of disassembled pieces of that one. So I think it should have said that the UK has accepted 34, one of which it lost and three of which are in the US, leaving 30 operational. “There is an expectation that all of the 47 in the first batch will be delivered by the end of 2025. Note that it… Read more »
48 F35B is plenty, we should start doubling down on drones and energising project Ark Royal. No point in wasting money on F35B for land based RAF when tempest is getting delivered in 2035.
If LM wanted us to buy 138 F35’s they should not have screwed us on code and weapons integration, we owe them nothing.
Everyone is waiting on weapons integration. And double down on non existent drones and spend Billions to retrofit the carriers?
Why would it cost billion to retro fit the carriers? Go and read the documents produced already. It’s tens of millions not billions. The drones already exist, we just need to buy them, take a look at MQ25.
10s of millions is a joke, Emals and AAG are costing upto a Billion dollars for the next french carrier, even with a smaller setup were still going to have to modify the deck layout and add to it while fitting a Catapault in somewhere.
And MQ25 is a refuelling drone that’s not even on service yet, going to be a decade before any combat drones are in service.
Tempest will be replacing Typhoon, not F-35 though.
But Tempest is a different beast than the Typhoon.
I read it’s bigger than a Tornado F3, and with GR4++capabilities wrapped up in a stealth coat! So it would operate more like a Tonka F3?
And Typhoon is a different beast than Tornado F3, but it was still the replacement for it.
Not really, the aim is 3 squadrons (12-14 jets) + OTC (12 jets) + reserve 10% that’s well over 50 jets. Also there is an airframe hours issue with the early tranche jets that means they will not likely last much beyond 2100 hours ( there is discussion that the first tranche of US marine F35Bs will be retired by 2026). So it’s probably that the UK will need to rotate out 10-12 of its early buy jets. Also these are going to be our fixed wing navel aviation for the next 40 years..even after the structural redesign they are… Read more »
I thought it was 4 squadrons – and would be about 90 needed to fulfill that capability?
Correct, that wat the original scope. Funny how the incremental cuts creep in -politicians eh!
My concern is the gap will grow with T1 Typhoon gone i.e. how to support -7 frontline sqns on reduced Typhoon numbers. I foresee 11 sqn being cut in the 2025 SDR. So maybe the equivalent of 6 Typhoon and 3 F35 sgns? Very thin on the numbers.
It’s a personal view, but I’d like to see the RAF order Tranche 4 Typhoons to replace Tranche 1.
Indeed, in reality the UK needs 8 front line typhoon squadrons and 4 F35B squadrons.
personally I would like to see 12 squadron developed into a front line typhoon squadron.
Agreed on the 8 and 4 sqns – a good balance.
Ideally we’d have 12 frontline Typhoon squadrons and 6 F-35 squadrons, and around 300 aircraft.
8 Typhoon plus 4 F-35 would do, though.
agreed Steve
The RAF does not plan to update all of Tranche 2 Typhoons with new radar 2. So why would they procure new Typhoons?
to replace the retired Tranche 1’s?
Naval, not navel
The latter half of the article is RAF-specific. Pity there is no mention of the FAA.
We need to restore an independant FAA before the next major war. Sharing between RAF(Main hand) & RN is a dangerous cost cutting exercise. Each service needs to know each has a force sufficient to work with including attrition reserves. Pity we cut the AV 8B force as it would have provided so much experience & a basic capability through the QE training work up. As it is we have to use an eye watering expensive top spec stealth fighter for every task.
We never had the AV-8 Harrier. Do you mean the Sea Harrier FA2 and Harrier GR7/9?
That’s why we’re looking to implement drones, so that not every task requires a £100 million Gen5 jet.
Our GR7/9s were licensed/sub contracted UK versions of the BAE/McDonald Douglas AV-8B. They would’ve paid for themselves had we retained them during the intervention in the Libyan civil war.
Tempest is too far off. IOC is probably 2040+. Buy some more Typhoons with mk2 radar. Need to keep the RAF in fighters for the next 20 years.
exactly – invest in the tranche 4 Typhoon now
Don’t be silly, that would be way too sensible. Let’s have at least another 3 reviews to determine that we don’t have enough jets to do anything that radical.
😁
One of the things that may pop up soon is the structural issues of the early tranche f35bs, I have read estimates that they only really have just over 2000 hours on those early f35bs before they need to be retired. Infact they had a pretty significant structural redesign after 2018/19 because of that to take them back up to the designed 8000 hours per hull. It’s been reported that the U.S. marines are already moved their early tranche F35bs out of front line operations with a thought that some may be retired as early as 2026. At a rough… Read more »
Oh right – I wasn’t aware of the massive reduction in those hours…F35B the gift that just keeps on giving hey.
It’s good the UK is the main partner for F35. We will get ours much sooner than say Australia that only has 63 in service……….Wait a moment………63? Wow.
If you don’t pay you don’t get….
Aren’t guns a bit 20th century? A cheap way to kill mass drone swarms would be direct energy weapons such as EMP and lazers. Though Dragonfly is only for our warships. Surely as time goes by they’ll get smaller and more powerful. I believe the teams involved with NGAD Tempest II are looking to develop lazers to take out drones. These could potentially be retrofitted the the F35b fleet further on.
A small aircraft struggle, already with powering the radar, avionics, neither-mind lasers!
Sounds like the whole fleet will consist of B variant. Is there a reason why UK will not procure A’s?
Several.
Another question discussed very regularly on here 🙄
Oooo look at all those worms ….
Yes, a number of reasons. With a total purchase of 138 F-35s over a period of 25-ish years, and likely no more than 75 in our fleet at any one time, it makes no sense to have an A/B split. An A/B split means that however many As we have, are that number fewer available to operate from our aircraft carriers. An A/B split also requires two OCUs (or at least an A/B split OCU) with two streams of pilots, two pools of instructors and two different training regimes. It also requires two separate pools of spare aircraft to replace… Read more »
Thanks for clarifying
For a start, the RAF don’t have the right re-fueling equipment to re-fuel F-35A!
While we’re at it, let’s ask about up arming the OPVs lol
All those bloody Admirals ambling around Leach building don’t have a clue, I tell ya.
Those silly Rivers need at least a 50mm on the end, with them pointless pop guns the ships a waste of time. Not like a proper navy….in my day…..ooo arhhh.
Gosport Ferry and silly little Archers need at least a 20mm while they’re at it.
But all those Admirals we have no need for are to busy with their Pink Gins.
Anything with a lighter armament than HMS Furious is a waste of time I tell thee.
But I’ll have nothing said against Pink Gink by you queer- and gynophobes!
138* over decades should no longer be the goal given the threats from the East and that the CVFs overload capacity (~72) is much greater than 36x often reported on. You have to think bigger (to win) if you don’t want to learn russian or chinese or be cold in the ground. ..and lets face it the dumb pollies and light blue shafted the RN over the FA2s and if history repeats some bright spark in government will see, just like in the late 1930s: the RN should own and control its fighters; and revert control to senior service once… Read more »
Fair point 👍
Werent we supposed to have 48(47) by the end of 2024 ?
Serious waste of money and those.maiing such decisions need to lose their pensions and personal wealth.
This past week we saw Israel turn their f35s around and cancel their earth shattering aggression against Iran.
The US darent fly f22 or f35 near Russia because they know they are being tracked.
It’s doubling down on failure and a technology created by a Russian who is now writing anti stealth equations.
They also have a lifespan that is a third of comparative airframes so you get a quarter of the plane for four times the money.
Israeli f35 s flew for 4 hours over Iran without any loss …I think that a good success rate. Remember f117 over Serbia