British F-35 jets join Israeli and US F-35s in joint exercise

Totally agree on the air power front, whilst Iran has been steadily building up its SAM technology. They have the latest S300 PMU2 from Russia and have developed the Kamin-2 and Sayyad-3. They have obviously had outside informal assistance probably from both China and Russia.
I think this is one of the reasons that Israel and LM have been researching the stealthy conformal fuel tanks. With a 40% increase in fuel this would give the A model the round trip range to reach Tehran.

Yes, Iran has attacked Israel twice now this year and has used Hezbollah as their proxies. Admittedly, Israel are less inclined to use the carrot, preferring the stick. As to signing up to the deal with the USA, that was totally in Iran’s interests. At that time they were making big noises about how developed their nuclear program was becoming, especially with the enrichment centrifuges. Israel did a cyber attack on them, making them spin out of control until they destroyed themselves, but that didn’t stop Iran building new ones. Israel has stated that if they “feel” threatened by Iran’s development of nuclear technology i.e. weapons development, it will attack.
Before the revolution, Persia, was the only country in the middle east to recognise Israel. This, I think is because they are not Arab, but Persian by race. Historically they have always been at odds with the Arab countries. In fact they were at war with the Ottoman empire during the first half of the 20th century and had numerous border disputes.
However, that all changed once they became an Islamic republic.

Do we need to fill both carriers? I’d say fill one carrier and have a more limited defensive force for the 2nd. One carrier as strike, the 2nd as commando/amphib support. Plus obviously enough Bs for training, maintenance, OEU etc. 72 tops, the rest As. Don’t forget both carriers on ops is likely to be as a result of all-out war with in a distant theatre, probably not that likely. Oh, and consolidate the Bs at Yeovilton operating under the FAA and the As at Marham as the RAF

Plus in that scenario I am sure there would be plenty of Marine F35s to fill the gaps and show solidarity.

Wouldn’t Yeovilton be very crowded with all the choppers.

I agree with this and I wonder if its time to re-open a former RAF base for front-line use – perhaps Leuchars or Kinloss or Wattisham – and turn it into a RNAS. Gone are the days when Lossie and Portland were also RNAS stations. If Hunt becomes PM and defence budget increases, more Navy choppers are likely if number of frigates increase or helicopter carrier ordered

Probably not Julian, and don’t the US have just three squadrons of 10 Hornets on their carriers now? could be mistaken there but if it is true then at 24 jets for each carrier sounds pretty good to me, and not far off the yanks. Could 48 jets be operated out of a total of 72? either way I am in agreement about the A.

Edit

The second carrier as amphib/support, yeah definitely if the situation needed it, but i do also believe it be wise to have enough jets for both carriers for strike/air superiority, there might not be the situation for amphib and we just need as many jets there for air superiority/strike, although i do agree it is highly unlikely we would ever need that.

An LPH is really needed for a commando carrier. Yes, a replacement for HMS Ocean would be better for operating closer to shore with embarked choppers.

@SoleSurvivor – As one who regularly argues (sorry disagrees in a friendly way Lol) against the ‘A’ I am not worried about filling the carriers as we have extra support from the USMC for some years forward as our production orders are filled.

My issue is a simple one – Why would we buy yet another airframe with all the extra invisible on-costs that go with that decision when we have already established a rather unique ability that can deliver a substantial attack with what we now have. The ‘B’ can enter, assess, suppress and target as well as an ‘A’ variant and can then launch from / guide in heavy weapon loads from an associated Typhoon which can out carry any ‘A’ variant by a big margin.

We should move away from defining capabilities by aircraft type as it is the combined inter-operability that will count far more. The Typhoon is one very capable bomb truck and the F-35 is as good as it gets in stealth entry, surveillance, suppression and targeting. Plus we have the variant that can indeed land in car parks and football stadiums as the Harrier did to great effect many years ago. Never believe we won’t need it because that guarantees we will.

Hi Chris hope you’re well

Yeah I get that but i was more on the line on if we need both carriers independent of Uncle Sam, as Julian said above highly unlikely, but as you say in your last paragraph better to need something and have it than to need it and not have it.

Would the cheaper cost of the A variant make up for the invisible costs, currently sits at $25m cheaper per airframe, and could be more as the A variant is being procured in huge numbers, and follow on to that is parts for the A would be more available and cheaper?

The B can enter and assess as good as the A but suppress? if we are talking about one target yes but with a larger internal payload the A can suppress a bit more. Throw in a longer range, better turn rate, less drag and better acceleration it is just a better aircraft Chris, there is no arguing there mate, read any comparison and the A is overall better, it was designed for USAF where as the B was designed for the USMC, so which is going to be the better fighter, although I do understand it is not as big as a gap between say, a 5th gen and 4th gen, it is still marginally better in quite a few areas.

So if the carrier numbers are not compromised, it works out the same money wise (possibly cheaper due to lower cost) it’s what the RAF want, i really don’t see a problem with getting a slightly better aircraft for our RAF.

Typhoon – Air Defence/Multi Role (RAF)
F-35A Lightning – Multi Role/Stealth Attack (RAF)
F-35B Lightning – Carrier Strike (Stealth) (FAA)

Do we need F35A if we have Tempest?

Deciding aircraft mix is a long term decision, with Typhoon likely in service out to 2040 and potentially beyond, and F35 in service out to 2060 and beyond. If Tempest comes in around 2035-40, as an air superiority biased multi-role, then F35A seems redundant as a likely subset of Tempest capability. If we stick with buying F35B then we retain those unique capabilities, whether solely for RN use or still split between RAF and RN.

its a good point. let’s say we were in a position to order f35As in 5 years time (after 72 Bs are all ordered/delivered), we will know a lot more about tempest then. is, is it happening, what will it cost, who will the partners be. It’s a decision and thought process that will evolve but getting the Bs full complement is the current priority and focus

But we don’t have Tempest, like you say it’s two decades away, maybe more, in the here and now we have Lightning that is replacing Tornado and Harrier, let’s give the RAF what they clearly want which is the A, i’m sure they will have Tempest in mind when thinking about the future.

If, in a few years time the RAF are conducting a mission out of Cyprus, stealth entry etc, at current rate they will be using the B, it makes no difference in 2040 if we are using the A or the B now for that, we will still have the B for the carriers, but A for the RAF and when Tempest comes it will replace Typhoon, and then the small number of A, because it will only ever be a modest amount, with near 20 years of service, just augments the bigger Tempest fleet, even taking on the bomb truck role of the Typhoon.

Two points. Tempest might be >2 decades away. It might also only be 15 years away. There is a very strong focus on spiral development from continuing Typhoon improvements to de-risk and cost manage the program. The F35 program has demonstrated that its the avionics and software packages that are by far the most critical and time consuming components in the development. Leveraging Typhoon helps address this.

The current F35B purchase rate is planned to deliver the 48 aircraft currently committed to by 2024, 2025 might be the earliest we could get F35A, depending on demand from others customers. That might only be 10 years before the first Tempest are operational.

Buying a few F35A for an interim requirement, especially when we have an option for Typhoon continuous improvement, is not efficient or logistically economic. Better to have a commitment to more F35B to ensure more than bare minimum support and redundancy for the carrier strike mission, in addition to RAF roles, in the interim.

Remember also that the UK do not operate alone. There will be plenty of other nations in Europe with F35A, including Norway, Belgium, Netherlands, Italy, Denmark and possibly the Poles; before we even count the US. What the UK has that none of the others have, with the exception of the US, is fifth generation carrier strike. Its not what each country has alone but how we operate together that’s important for NATO.

It could only be 15 years away , but it could also be 30 years away, and that is it entire possible.

And yeah i get the point about support and redundancy for carrier strike, i would not want that jeopardized, and maybe it cannot be done with a mix buy with just 138 airframes, the order could be increased though especially with how cheap the F-35A is going to be, i guess we will wait and see, but if the RAF are fighting for it and the Gov have not ruled it out i think there is a good chance it will happen.

Are the RAF fighting for it? And even if so would they still fight for it if given the choice between F35A and Tempest, because I suspect it may come down to that choice. The UK’s original plan for a total of 138 F-35’s did not comprehend Tempest, and I don’t see that number surviving a Tempest program.

For Tempest to be a successful program it will have to be produced in significant volume to drive down cost, which probably means at least 500 air-frames across all partners and third party sales. Regardless of potential partners, the UK will need to purchase a major number of air-frames, perhaps 150-200. How many F-35’s, of any ilk, will that allow in addition?

30 years to IOC also seems very pessimistic. There were a lot of reasons why Eurofighter took that long, many outside UK control. There have been many lessons learnt from Eurofighter and more recently the F-35 programs to better manage the Tempest program.

Well it’s just sources isn’t it, “Sources tell Sky News that senior RAF officers are pushing for a version of a supersonic warplane that can only fly from land”

And along with not ruling out when asked about a split buy I don’t think the decision has been made.

Again I think it’s a question of if Tempest is on time, if it’s on time like you say then I can sort of see where you’re coming from but my opinion still stands. And there will have to be an F-35 fleet of some ilk because we will still have the carriers, the future as I see it is around 150 Tempest and 138 F-35 over the lifetime.

It is pessimistic but when you look at what team tempest want to do with it, sixth generation fighter that can fly unmanned, energy weapons. Look at how many jets the American have been designing and making for decades and then the problems they have had with the F-35, with practically unlimited funds, something we won’t have.

Also if there is two squadrons in 2023 of B, then the next two are B and so on, how many squadrons of B are we going to have? We know they are being shared with the RAF and inevitably the RAF will be flying the B from airfields, so why not order 70/80 B for the carriers and the rest A to stand up a squadron or two, a more capable aircraft for the RAF.

I really don’t see that much of a problem if it’s not affecting anything and can be afforded which I think it will with the lower cost of the A making up for extra costs of running another variant, might even work out cheaper and that might be the only way we can see a full 138 ordered.

I guess we will agree to disagree ?

I certainly have no problem with constructive disagreement, and you may well be correct in your overall assessment. I am just approaching from a more holistic perspective on what Tempest will need and by default how that may impact F35. I suspect those Sky sources may be pushing for a Mach 2 class, >60,000 feet ceiling, >60,000 feet/min rate of climb air superiority biased, multi-role replacement for Typhoon; F-35 in any guise won’t do that. Oh and they do probably want a gun because … fighter pilots 🙂

IMO there will definitely be an F-35 fleet, but perhaps more like half of the 138 originally planned and in this case they need to all be F-35B. They could still be split between RAF and RN, but I could also see them become a dedicated RN capability.

I think we have to be careful about extrapolating F-35 delays onto Tempest. One of the major issues with F-35 has been trying to create 3 quite different aircraft, with different performance characteristics and requirements, into one platform. The other, concerning software development, is why leveraging spiral development of Typhoon and absorbing additional lessons from F-35 has been identified as key.

Likewise with capabilities like optionally manned and energy weapons. These don’t have to be day one IOC capabilities. They can be rolled into the platform later, provided hardware systems such as the engine, sensors, processors etc. are designed from the outset to support them or be easily and affordably upgrade-able to do. For example we can fly today’s planes unmanned already. The challenge is being able to do that well enough that its an asset for primary roles, and that’s a function of processing and software, both of which can be developed and upgraded over time time, after IOC.

@SoleSurvivor – I am rather well thanks mate – bumbling along as they say.
I can understand the straight line argument for an ‘A’ above a ‘B’ where STOVL is not a requirement. However for the next at least 10 years it will be so it seems to negate that discussion. And as other well informed contributors mention we are then into Tempest timeframes.

But I have to come back to the simple statement that if you are going to use a ‘A’ for a stealth assisted operation then that is no more asset than a ‘B’ offers on the initial entry, radar suppression, intelligence and targeting phase. So what does an ‘A’ THEN bring to the party that a Typhoon cannot bring faster, in more quantities and with more varied weapon suites? And I believe the answer is ‘not a lot’. So that infers the question why bother with an ‘A’ if we have ‘B’ and Typhoon already in place and budgeted?

Apart from sensors and ‘stealth’ the ‘A’ cannot compete with a Typhoon in any way especially with its latest upgrades of weapons and radar. And the Typhoon isn’t exactly ‘unstealthy’.

Glad to hear it mate

I think for a stealth assisted operation you would want the benefits of a better fighter just in case the s**t hits the fan and you need to fight your way out of dodge, the A is a better fighter, it’s not a 100% cert it will go undetected.

If it can be done without compromising the carriers then I think we should do it to give the RAF the best all round option to replace Tornado. It was not long ago we had 70 odd Tornados and 70 odd Harriers (or whatever the numbers were) it’s not unreasonable to have three types of aircraft again, two of them being different variants of the same aircraft.

And yeah last point definitely agree with, I have argued in favour of the Typhoon many a time on here, Gandalf’s comment below also brings this up with some good points.

Again like always with us it’s down to money, in an ideal world the F-35 order would slightly go up to cover the carriers for attrition and three squadrons on each if needed, two or three squadrons of F-35A which is what the RAF want, pour good money into Typhoon upgrades, but in all honesty it’s not that big of an issue for me, as long as Tempest comes to fruition and on time.

I wonder if the ‘lift-fan’ could be removed from
the F-35B, and stored for when necessary needed, and a fuel tank fitted in the space vacated by the lift-fan? If so, it would give the F-35B the same range as the F-35A.

I would like to add:
This type of the F-35B would be use by the RAF conventionally

Technically, anything is possible if you “throw enough money at it.” It would be an expensive conversion. In many ways, it would be cheaper to just but F-35As if the idea was to use a conventional version of the Lightning.

The RAF Typhoon T2s are still around, just been cannibalised and held in storage, so in theory can be reinstated. The T2 would be an ideal candidate for both an EW support platform as well as drone controller. As much as the research is being put into the loyal wing man or drones being controlled by the pilot, I feel the workload will be huge, especially when things start to go wrong and they have to adapt to the situation. Having the rear seat occupied by someone who can concentrate on controlling the drones rather than fighting the aircraft makes perfect sense to me.
The Typhoon Pretorian ECM is very good, however it was only designed to protect the aircraft, not do blanket jamming and spoofing. The Growler is on a completely different level, as that’s designed to target the radar or radios at source rather than putting a bubble around the aircraft.
The Typhoon could fulfil this role, as most of the Growler’s ECM gear is fitted to its wing and fuselage hard-points. The beauty of a Growler shepherding a F35 strike package, is that it can jam the low frequency radars. Thus shielding them from detection, at some point the radar will burn through the jamming, but the F35s might be within the minimum range of these radars. Which would keep the enemy guessing what’s approaching, as the jamming could be detected.

Ok thx, i agree it makes sense to make better use a Tranche 2 typhoon than just spare parts and enhance the RAF capabilities
Also all this EW knowledge acquired will be required for Tempest, so the proverbial 2 birds with one stone comes to mind

Not sure i would count national interest as a reliable source. The Rafale flew without any support accross Libya against S200, i am not a fan of the F35, but i would assume that it can fly against S200 without any issues.
AFAIK, no one has tested a western aircraft vs S300 or S400 activated, or it’s classified. When the allies bomb Syria, they target ISIS in the east of the country so the Russians and Syrians have no incentive to target western planes and i assume that they do not fly over Damascus. And the one time the allies hit Syria after the use of chemical weapons they did not fly over Syria, they used long range strikes

The aircraft taking off from Cypress, don’t enter Syria from the West, They fly over N. Israel, into Jordan, W Iraq eventually going into Syria from the SE and E. This circumvents the defences around Damascus and W Syria in particular. The S400 battery at Khmeimim is just out of range of viewing aircraft take-off from Akrotiri. Our aircraft skirt the S400’s bubble down to Israel.

As I said earlier, a F-35B converted for use to land conventionally, without a lift-fan and with a fuel tank fitted in place, would still use drogue refuelling.