The future of the UK’s combat air capability is under scrutiny as the Ministry of Defence (MoD) considers the export procurement of new Typhoon jets against the potential cessation of Typhoon final assembly at BAE Systems’ Warton facility, and the retention of skilled workers for the Global Combat Air Programme (GCAP).
During a series of parliamentary questions on March 3, Liberal Democrat MP Tom Morrison pressed the government on whether it planned to order additional Typhoon aircraft for the Royal Air Force (RAF) and Fleet Air Arm, as well as the broader impact of shifting to F-35A jets.
In response, Minister of State for Defence Maria Eagle confirmed that the MoD is conducting an ongoing Strategic Defence Review, which will determine the demand for combat aircraft in response to an increasingly complex threat environment. She stated:
“To provide the UK with the most relevant and capable force, the Ministry of Defence continually reviews the demand for Combat Aircraft which will be required to operate in increasingly demanding and changing threat environments. The ongoing Strategic Defence Review is also examining this area.”
Typhoon Production at Risk?
Concerns over the potential end of final assembly for Typhoon aircraft at BAE Systems’ Warton facility have also been raised. Morrison asked whether the government had engaged with BAE Systems regarding the issue. Eagle confirmed that discussions with BAE Systems and other stakeholders had been ongoing for months, particularly regarding export campaigns for the Typhoon. However, she did not directly confirm or deny whether Typhoon production at Warton is set to cease.
The prospect of Typhoon production ending raises serious questions about the sustainability of the UK’s defence industrial base, especially considering the workforce at Warton. The government has maintained that export orders remain key to sustaining the production line, but with future orders uncertain, the viability of keeping the assembly line running domestically is in question.
Ensuring Workforce Retention for GCAP
As the UK works on developing its sixth-generation fighter under the Global Combat Air Programme (GCAP), Morrison also questioned what steps the government is taking to ensure that the skilled workforce required for the programme is retained. Eagle confirmed that discussions are ongoing with stakeholders, but again, provided no clear commitments beyond stating that the issue is part of the Strategic Defence Review.
Given that combat aircraft development is a long-term endeavour, retaining highly skilled engineers, designers, and production workers will be essential to delivering the next generation of air combat capability. With uncertainty surrounding Typhoon production and shifting procurement priorities, industry leaders will be looking for greater clarity on how the government intends to sustain the UK’s aeronautical engineering expertise.
What Next?
The UK government’s defence review will be key in shaping the future of its air combat capabilities and industrial base. The potential cessation of Typhoon final assembly, increased reliance on the F-35, and workforce retention for GCAP all present critical questions that must be addressed.
I hope with the promise of extra defence spending we can keep building Typhoons. Having more squadrons sounds like a sense idea. I assume we will need a couple of new squadrons based in Ukraine.
It seems bonkers to me that we don’t keep the production lines open whilst flogging off older airframes to other countries. Retains skills, helps industry plan for the future, raises money and increases economic output. All round no brainer
100% this. Plus they’re still fantastic aircraft. A couple of more squadrons would give us more strike capability aswell as potentially air defence.
Yes but you need to be certain that a market exists for your second hand Typhoons – if you can’t move them on your costs vs benefits won’t work.
I agree, the defence review should just keep it simple especially now there is more money and the US is abandoning Europe. We can just substantially increase the Typhoon fleet and order four more E7’s and we are done. No need for any more programs with cool sounding four letter acronyms. Buy 70 tranche 4 typhoons and upgrade the 30 trance 1’s to meteor carrying capability like the Spanish are doing. Rise up to 8 front line Typhoon squadrons and create two reserve squadrons. Keep the F35B purchase at 48 and two squadrons.
We can easily do that for a third for the £2 billion a year increase coming in 2027.
Same goes for the other forces. The navy needs 30 surface combatants, just go out and buy 10 T31/T32 and add a T26 on. The army needs 100,000, just do an UOR for the Patria 6×6 and add three more light mechanised brigades.
We need more stragtic nuclear weapons just go out and double the warhead count for trident, we already have everything else.
If we keep stuff simple and look to add mass to existing programs then we can get alot of bang for £6 billion a year.
I think we should replace all our airframes with tranche 4 and perhaps give Ukraine access to the Tranche 1 typhoons. I would agree with keeping things simple in terms of procurement. We should definitely ensure we complete GCAP as well.
Hi M8, I have to say it’s an odd article. We have an SDR in progress and it’s just a loaded question to get Eagle to state the blindingly obvious. Yes we are looking at it and just about everything else as that’s what a “review” does.
I actually think that this isn’t going to be an easy exercise to carry out because there are things we would like to do which just can’t be speeded up (Frigates for starters as we are full to capacity).
All we can do is sit tight and await its delivery, but we need it the SDR ASAP, PDQ for numerous reasons.
Firstly it’s all very well announcing an increase to 2.5% but without actual extra announcements it just will not placate Tango man for long.
Secondly Industry needs certainty to encourage investment, recruitment, training and the time to order long lead items ASAP.
Thirdly and I don’t think anyone has mentioned this we desperately need to start on a long term National project to win “Hearts and Minds” of a large proportion of our fellow citizens who just don’t see Defence as a priority or career path.
So Yep I’d go back to Army displays, Navy Days, Airshows, local recruitment fronted by the Military, increase the Cadet force and tell the ARMY to suck it up and work to expand the Reserves to 50K+.
The strange thing about that is it could just have a knock on effect to crime figures ! We presently have over 800,000 18 to 24 year olds who are classed as NEET (doing nothing).
As I see it we must concentrate on 2 things set an aspirational force level and capabilities for 2035 and concentrate on delivering as much as we can by 2030.
For a practical example I’d state the number of SSN(A) should start to increase to 10 from 2035 but to do that we accelerate the Dreadnought build and add an extra one for a force of 5. I don’t care what anyone else says but that schedule is based on what is deliverable and not the “build more Astutes” or buy SSK comments of some.
What we absolutely do need to right now, ASAP, PDQ is increase our war stocks of munitions across the board and ensure that the lethality of everything we have in service, being built or on order is maximised.
So more missiles, shells, spares and increase logistic support, maintenance facilities , reserves.
As for Air defence we need to set a realistic Force level for 2035 but an intermediary capacity for 2030. GBAD is a must but requires a lot of industrial expansion in hi tech jobs so no quick fix available. What can help in the short term is ordering 24/36 New Typhoons and increasing our Tanker capacity. That way we can get CAP as far forwards as possible and by that I mean Norway and the far North.
We may not like what’s going on in the US but it’s best to remember that without their support / spares we have no AEW, MPA, F35B, M207. C17 or Apaches so yes I’d order more (also helps keep us off the Tariff naughty step).
It’s fine to buy more planes but without pilots and ground crew we are stuffed, so increase trading and try to recruit some of those who have left.
Army isn’t my area but if we are only able to produce 148 CR3 then FFS fit them all with Trophy and back them up with a Tracked IFV, SPG etc. String Carter up from a tree and have a good look at Tracked Boxer as it has so much modular cross over with wheeled Boxer, RCH155 etc (KISS thinking makes logistics simple).
That may all sound a bit lame but is doable and expandable towards an upsized Defence Capability.
I agree, especially on the need for a 5th Dreadnaught and 10 SSN’s from 2035. With 5 UK SSBN’s and 4 French ones we can probably just about squeeze three at sea at anyone time. A secondary strike capability based on 3 SSBN’s is good in anyones boom and only one less than the USA.
SSN’s will be useful whether the future enemy is Russia, China or even America.
However we will be looking at a decade minimum until we would have any more nuclear boats in the fleet and Trump, Putin and Xi are all likely to be dead by then.
Why a fifth dreadnought?
Surely the build hall would be better used to get SSN-AUKUS in the water sooner so that we can have overlap with the Astutes?
The stuff about Forces visibility is absolutely vital and needs a voice in Parliament.
Love it Jim. The concept is great but for the MOD to keep it simple and rapidly build massively back into our armed forces would mean they can’t get their gold plated exquisite toilet seats and overly complicate, delay and generally balls up simple programmes.
I do agree entirely with your matter-of-fact list. SDSR should deliver something like that but we all know they won’t.
The only added component for me would be an integrated multi layered UK air defence system so long, medium range missiles, enough AWACs and typhoon/ F35s A/Bs and then Samp/T, land Ceptor, radar guided guns and direct energy weapons as well as ECM/ ECCM emitters.
Jim be serious 🤣 “just go and buy some” in defence unless it’s something small you go out and order something and you’ll get it in 5 to 10 years.
Tranche 1 Typhoon are pretty well all gone already. You are governed by crewing and infrastructure so a 24 (options for 12 more) buy off typhoons and 24 F35B (already in the equipment plan) would be better. Just remember we make a lot of money building parts of F35B and if we don’t order more we could lose that. You do realise that since we bought 5 radar sets for E7 the USAF, RAAF and NATO have all placed orders so we would be at the back of a very long queue (10-15 years). But we could go up to 5 !
As for buying more Nuclear Warheads at present that is pretty well impossible at present as the AWE is renewing and expanding the facilities at Aldermaston and Burghfield (Project MENSA). That’s ongoing as we need to replace our existing Warheads with new ones to coincide with Dreadnought introduction (Project Astraea).
But PM BJ did decide to increase the numbers so once we do produce the new ones we will have the ability to go further. FYI just bear in mind that although we design and build our own Warheads we are 100% reliant on the US for certain materials.
As a matter of interest why the 6 x 6 Patria ? We already have 623 Boxers on order and as we still have Tanks I think need a Modern Tracked IFV to accompany them. To me Trackec Boxer makes more sense (same engines and modules as wheeled Boxer) and with RBSL we have a hot production line to follow on from the Boxers on order (just speed up the delivery). Oh and I’d buy 100 Skyranger turrets and add LMM.
Given that the US is looking very unreliable at the moment, keeping the Typhoon production lines open seems a sensible precaution to me.
100% agree buy more typhoons (T4) upgrade what we have and then once our own euro 6th gen is built make do we can’t depend on the USA anymore and that hurts me say
Only in this country would closure of the production line not be immediately denied at a time like this.
Jim’s right, we need 70+ new build typhoon tranche 4s. And only when they are in service and operational can we even consider releasing the tranche 1s to Ukraine, or Poland or Estonia, or Finland
We certainly need more Typhoon Squadrons for the threats we face. Do we need more strategic assets?
I’m confused –
Typhoon for fleet air arm?
F-35A?
Was that actually what was asked?
It all seems a bit daft.
No.
“as well as the broader impact of shifting to F-35A jets.”
A switch to F35A has been mooted as an alternative to the F35B for years.
It would impact the aircraft available to the QE Carriers, which use the F35B.
Any F35A purchase should be in addition to the next tranche of F35B, not instead of.
And if the US is really walking away, should we be buying any more at all?
Well, we’ve tied ourselves down there. We either suck it up and keep buying the F-35Bs or refit our carriers for CATOBAR operations. There are no alternative STOVL options.
The second tranche of F35 is needed, as is another Typhoon purchase.
And the RAF, UKSF need the 14 new Chinooks.
So much US kit is used across the military we cannot just stop buying US stuff. Though In time, we should switch to UK European.
I agree with this Daniele, we can’t change overnight but as swiftly as is feasible we need to move away from US arms as maximumly as is possible. I just heard the Bannon tapes which spelt out (certainly in his view) the US policy to not just destroy The EU but to take it over and effectively exploit Europe as a colony, sound familiar, I’m sure it will to Ukranians. Did we not see early attempts of this nature by Vance recently.
That man was a key advisor to Trump first time around and it seems to me that Trump and co are hell bent on weakening those of us who are ‘allies’ who support democracy and eventually dividing everything possible between him and Putin and as we have seen with Ukraine after the stitch up in the Oval Office, he is willing to save face by cutting off support to Ukraine to get his way, Even Rubio is a compliant useful idiot as things stand and there simply is no restraining factors on the mad MAGA executive control.
So to me it’s Ukraine today and Europe tomorrow in his lunatic plan I presume to try to prise away Russia from China. How can that succeed, at best it gives Russia a stronger hand in negotiating with China but in reality if and when China wants at some point in the future to re acquire its lost Siberian lands as it becomes more and more dominant, only nuclear war can stop it and Putin knows the US won’t be there to help, so he will continue to play ball with China to try to put that scenario off, whatever bs he dangles to the American village idiot. So in best case scenario we have 3 autocratic leaders playing games with the rest of us as pawns, to try to reach the higher ground over each other, just as Octavian, Antony and Lepidus did in Rome as it turned from Republic to Empire, which might account for all the ‘Roman’ salutes in MAGA these days. In truth all it shows is America accepting its weak and getting weaker and needs to play the game of dictators to try to compensate and we will be a prime target to be squeezed, so if Europe doesn’t become a powerful force in its own right, we can’t presume this is just a 4 year distraction.
Equally as Israel voted with the America and oh so ironically its own arch enemy Iran, last week (note China actually abstained) we simply cannot trust them, they will do what they are told and as such as little reliance on their weaponry/technology should also be practiced here and in Europe, certainly unless we have full control over production independently of them.
Additionally, if you want to keep the aircraft available for the CATOBAR carriers. The only realistic off the shelf option is Rafale-M. Which is no bad thing, but it is not a F35.
That would be terrible solution, an aircraft that is stage 3 of its life, if we were lunatic enough to go catobar it would the F18 or F35C, anything would shot out of the sky in 10-15 years time.
Even if we did refit for CATOBAR, what would we do, buy Rafale?
To be honest our priorities should be far from fitting Catobar on our carriers in any scenario where the US is no longer a trusted friend. Any war we face in that scenario won’t be won or lost around their existence so the cost would be far better used elsewhere. Their relevance declines massively if America isn’t on our side any more sadly.
I’d say get the next batch of say 40 F35Bs, enough to surge 36 aircraft if needed onto both carriers then that’s it no more, all other resources go into tranche 4 typhoons and GCAP development, which needs the programme pulled to the left and beginning build no later than 2030. If not sooner.
If anyone has ever watched the documentary ‘When Britain Ruled the Skies’ you’d realise how far we have sunk, from pioneering fast jets to potentially not even producing a complete aircraft!!! If this was shipbuilding oddly there would be far more uproar.
I have many books on the history of British Aircraft, way too many in fact, the period from the mid 40’s to late 60’s is one of absolute awe. Unfortunately it went the same way as shipbuilding, car manufacturing and motorcycle production to name just a few.
Wasn’t it the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act 1977 that pretty much sealed the fate of the Aerospace and shipyard industry?
Also a good documentary
The current situation specifically with Trump’s US and the clear indication that it has to be seriously considered whether to place all our eggs in the proverbial one basket of sole dependency upon the US.
There has to be serious doubts as to the reliability of that source.
When it suits America under any president of the time it will be supportive and offer attractive deals especially to counter any real competition from the UK as was seen with the TSR2 debacle.
Unfortunately the current America First is nothing new and has always been the case to the detriment of other nations.
From what I am reading and hearing from varied sources it will be a close run thing as to whether the US becomes an actual adversary under Trump. Indeed only efforts within the US will prevent that I think over this term. At best they will become unreliable hardly a comforting thought, Trump is intent on becoming the American Putin and I fear only the US mid terms if they are real elections by then, can prevent him achieving some semblance of that.
People forget (or mostly been written out of history) Britain and the US were headed towards war in the 1930s at one point and only the threat of Germany gaining focus knocked that out of the question. It’s one of the reasons they gutted us during after the war (and that was with a sane President), its very possible as and when Donny and Elon ‘raid’ Fort Knox they will find up to 60 billion of its gold if it’s still there, stamped with Bank of England identification marks.
Having more typhoons is a sensible solution. We already have the trained maintenance staff and A2A refueling capability. F-35A although a brilliant aircraft introduces addition problems. We have far fewer trained maintenance staff and we have no organic A2A refueling capability for it as that would require a boom fitted to our tankers of which we currently have zero.
Having said that we really do need to get booms fitted so that we can A2A refuel the Rivet Joint, Poseidon and Wedgetail aircraft all of which are boom refuellers.
I see no point whatsoever buying the A’s, there is little (Trump like profit) much rather spend the money in the UK and replace the T1’s with the best T4 variant until we get to the point of Tempest production.
Hopefully the disgusting Trump/Vance shit show will spur the UK on so we get back to doing what we can do the best.
I agree.
Can’t argue with that. I would however like to see enough F35Bs online for the RN to be able to deploy both carriers if needed with a 24-36 aircraft airwing onboard. That’s enough 5th gen aircraft to put the wind up Vlad the Impaler and would signal serious intent.
So I think 40 F35Bs not the touted 27 that were reportedly funded 18 months ago and yet strangely no order placed.
Have the bean counters at the treasury reallocated those funds somewhere else? Like supporting illegal immigrants to get huge benefits and live in hotels?
Indeed there have been sources recently here and in the saner parts of the US who have said if one good thing can come out of this it will be a wake up call that finally shocks Britain and Europe into looking to themselves to ensure their future not the US be it defence or trade more generally. Let’s hope so, it’s difficult to see the US being seen as anyone now as a serious friend or reliable ally more than intermittently at best, and planning needs far more stability than that. The US arms industry I think is going to take quite a big hit in the future.
There’s a version of F-35A that has the drogue style refueling probe so you wouldn’t need boom equipped tablets
It would pay BAE to discount the price of new Typhoons just to keep the assembly line and team intact until Tempest(hopefully) gets cracking. We might even be able to interest Ireland in purchasing for their requirements with an offer perhaps of a simplified fit in weaponry and equipment as their need is almost totally for the interceptor/air defence roles? Throw in another desperately needed couple of dozen for the RAF and the resulting run must surely reduce the unit cost?
Is the article slightly off in the wording? It states “planned to order additional Typhoon aircraft for the Royal Air Force (RAF) and Fleet Air Arm, as well as the broader impact of shifting to F-35A jets.”
I assume what we mean here is Additional Typhoon jets for the RAF and the broader impact of ordering more F35B for the RAF and FAA?
I took it to mean they are indeed considering the impact of a switch to F35A, it has been mooted for years as an alternative to give the RAF its Strike capability back following the cutting of Tornado GR4.
We have information previously that there are UCAV the RN envisage using off the carriers. If a large number of those come to fruition are more B actually needed?
I’m against it until the carriers have the F35B they need.
I took it to mean, that as usual, Liberal Democrat MP’s along with a whole host of others from across the parties haven’t a “bl**dy” scobies about Defence.
There had actually been a real increase in defence spending since Trump 1..there were only 8 NATO members meeting the 2% base then, now it’s 24. Many have plans underway to increase further, often quite considerably.
The driver was less Trump than Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.
Good to see the site back up and running.
Agree with Paul C.
Europe waking up, according to VDL.
Starmer talking tough about 2.5 starting in a few years, but beyond that, still hiding behind wait for the SDSR.
Coalitions of the willing, with 3 Regiments of Tanks, 2 Batteries of 155mm, and a committed, tiny military.
The US increasingly unreliable, not even informing allies.
And we dilly dally over whether we keep our sole fast jet type in production.
No wonder our enemies are emboldened.
Oh, DM, have you seen this space event that’s running at Farnborough in a few weeks?
Looks good, trade show with LM UK and Babcock with more general discussion of satellite reconnaissance etc.
Yes, it’s nice to have the site back up, but we seem to have lost comment notifications as well.
Hi mate. No, I had not seen that.
I find it incredible that it has taken a Tangine Tinted Trumpquake to wake everyone up.
That Starmer is still talking 2.5% and at the same time talking about a peace keeping mission shows there is zero understanding of what is involved.
I remember our defence secretary stating we were taking on the control of Helmand Provence when we had total forces in the region numbering less than 9000. The place is about the same size of the Republic of Ireland.
The difference between the numbers required as stated by some sensible ex military commentators in Ukraine and what we have available is huge and I am afraid the advice to Trump via the Pentagon will tell him that the U.K. and France along with the rest of Europe are incapable of the ‘heavy lifting’ required.
The usual.
Generations of our political class are blind to military matters.
Still lots of talking and no action or any real detail on how the military will be expanded, if at all.
Which units will be in this “peacekeeping” mission.
What other commitments are they pulled from?
How does that effect Cabrit? Do we abandon that?
Who replaces them after x number of months?
And all that is assuming the Russians tolerate and accept NATO forces in Ukraine, which was meant to be a big no no in the first place, on BOTH sides.
“Planes in the air”
Wonderful. Which planes? A Typhoon Sqn is ongoing deployed with Shader, the UK air defence is minimal, and F35 is also needed with the QEC.
The military is too small with the commitments it already has, and STILL our politicians talk tough and grandstand.
I agree SB, its baffling to me that somehow Trump is the wake-up call for Europe, when an actual shooting war has been going on in Ukraine for three years now. I guess hindsight is 20/20, but if three years of a savage war in Europe wasn’t enough of a shock it’s just hard to believe it took Trump’s gutter behavior to make European governments to take this seriously. it’s very puzzling for me, an American who voted against Trump, that after his first administration anything he does surprises people, especially if he laid it out in detail during the lead-up to his current Presidency exactly what he was going to do. I just can’t understand why anyone was surprised by this.
The good news is that from a sheer equipment and economic perspective, Europe should be able to deter Russia with one arm tied behind it’s back without US support. They just have to actually unite and start spending on key munitions, logistics, and staffing. Russia’s GDP is less than Canada’s, their massive reserve stock of Soviet era equipment has dwindled, and their economy is in serious trouble.
What happened ? It all seemed to go AWOL for a bit, the format and comment section changed and none of my comments stuck. Couldn’t respond on any Article.
We need more Typhoons in my opinion and more trained Pilots. Is it 6 years to train a Pilot ?
The comment plugin crashed the site. It is being re established slowly.
We do.
We need more of everything.
Oh, thanks.
Hopefully Starmer builds on his new found defence stance.
Unfortunately for Mr Starmer and the rest of Europe, Mr Trump told us very clearly in his first term that he expected to see a real increase in defence spending and we still haven’t started to do so and indeed in real terms the reductions having continued.
I don’t like the man but we in Europe can hardly expect to have much influence in Ukraine without having the military capability to be a proper deterrent to Russia on our own and without having to rely on Uncle Sam as back up just in case some shooting starts.
Yes that’s makes the US an unreliable ally given the previous government’s totally different policy but as most politicians know, Mr Trump has been and is completely unpredictable.
It is no good our Government stating we are awaiting an economic upturn because we started to rearm in the mid 1930s when the Great Depression still hung over the country. That’s what you have to do when the threat level is going up and getting closer.
Sadly in our current state we need to play for more time and accelerate our rearmament instead of shouting loudly but not carrying a very small stick.
When is penny going to drop.
Sorry should read ‘but only carrying a very small stick’
There had actually been a real increase in defence spending since Trump 1..there were only 8 NATO members meeting the 2% base then, now it’s 24. Many have plans underway to increase further, often quite considerably.
The driver was less Trump than Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.
Whilst you are correct when stating percentages that tells only a small part of the real story. The U.K. for example has continued to dispense with and gap fundamental capabilities and lose personnel numbers. 2% was a minimum and the world situation has considerably deteriorated since then and only Poland plus the tiny Baltic states have really upped the tempo of rearmament at this time.
If it wasn’t so serious it would be quite funny how the so called educated elite could be so out of touch with real life events.
Agreed, some good signs. Galling that it had to be Trump driving it, but still…
To me, it’s a no-brainer: bare minimum buy for F-35B for carrier strike (72); replace T1 Typhoon with T3 or T4 airframes for RAF instead of more F-35B or A.
Russia certainly has nothing competitive against a T4 Typhoon with MK2 AESA, meteor, Storm Shadow, and Spear3. Their GBAD isn’t bad, but not to sweep the air clear. We don’t need more 5th Gen aircraft before we get GBAD, but we do need the skills in the factories to build them.
I know it’s nowhere enough but didn’t Qatar order 12 more Typhoons from BAE last November/December? With at least another 12 from the UK, how long would that take them?
We NEED new Typhoon jets to replace all of the original Batch One aircraft now being reduced to spare parts=other partner nations have ALL ordered new production aircraft to replace theirs…it would be crazy not to do the same to replace them at this time and retain the skilled employed workforce to build them now until Tempest is ready for production.
The deal forF35A needs to be be killed off PDQ in favour of Typhoons. The aircraft are cheap in compassion and are more than up to the job until the eventual arrival of Tempest. The way it i going Trump will be selling F35 to Russia at this rate…. We need a in-house production of aircraft rather than a USA money pit that is only going to bleed us dry and not benefit us int he slightest.
Do you mean F35B? We have no deal to buy the A variant. We need more Bs to operate from the carriers. That is a given and we are stuck with that, regardless of the current issues with the US administration.
Agree though that we should order more Typhoon to keep the lines open, but it will be a long time before that translates into a bigger RAF fast jet fleet. Any additional order may only replace older airframes too.
As the military requirement has switched to air/land defence in Europe, how many F-35Bs the RN wants for its carrier singular declines in significance. We are not likely to be volunteering for more than minor expeditionary warfare any time soon.
Let us fulfill the order for 74, half for close air support of the land forces, the other half for the carrier air group. Then call it a day and concentrate on UK-European equipment, so we reduce our reliance on an erratic White House and expensive US kit that is years late in development and doesn’t work very well
There will not be any spare money in the extra £6 bn a year to 2027, it will largely be eaten up by the MOD black hole, which is largely RN ships and defence nuclear.
HMG will be hoping that Turkey chooses Typhoon to replace its F-16s, they sound quite keen so far. That would keep the Warton lines open for a few years, though Turkey would want to manufacture most of them in Turkey under licence.
We could certainly do with another two dozen to form a sixth squadron, particularly if we are planning to put a squadron into Ukraine. That would require additional funding from the Treasury, to the tune of around £3bn. The Tranche 4 version with the new European Common Radar System (ECRS) is not cheap, it increases the cost per aircraft by 50%.
Don’t forget our continental allies can certainly focus more heavily on procurement of land (and land based aircraft) equipment but for the U.K. we need to protect our own maritime domain, which is our backyard. Therefore we have to balance funds for sea, land and air forces.
Without US carriers for the NATO strike fleet then the U.K. and France are the only nations than fulfil this role.
We probably could do with another 48 F35Bs at least to simultaneously provide air groups for the carriers and the RAF. There are no simple or more importantly cheap solutions to our lack of mass.
F35A is no more expensive to buy than Typhoon due to the numbers sold.
But would add to maintenance load.
Indeed the F-36A is about 30% cheaper than the F-35B or Typhoon
And it is a good bit more capable than the former, in terms of wespon load, range, speed and rate of climb. The performance of the B is handicapped by having to lug around a weighty lift fan, which compromises its performance.
Not in the immediate flyaway cost per unit, no.
But factor in maintenance costs, the cost of spares, another OCU etc and the costs start to skyrocket.
Need to buy Typhoons, only buy enough F-35B to ensure Carrier ops, US proving to be to unreliable to put all our eggs in Tangerine mans basket. Also think should seriously look at replacing MK41’s with Sylver Strike length and Europe seriously getting on with developing own suite of weapons. Need to minimise reliance on US Weapons. Tehy won’t intergrate other than US so fine tell shove it up launch tube. if they lose 100’s of billions in FMS a LOT of congress people going have pissed of voters screams down phones at them.
There is a length (depth) difference between the strike length Mk41 and the Sylver A70. The Sylver is bang on 7m in depth, whilst the Mk41 is 7.6m. The extra 60cm might not sound like much, but it does give the Mk41 an advantage, as a manufacture could optimize the size of their “missile” to fit the launcher. Currently there are no in-service missiles that take up the full length of the Mk41. Tomahawk with its booster is 6.25m , whilst SM3 is 6.55. The SM6 is slightly longer at 6.6m, but is smaller in diameter. Both SM3 and SM6 have had their diameter’s increased recently. They may then look at adding a bit of additional length to pack in more fuel. By comparison the Aster 30 is only 4.9m long, as it was sized to fit the shorter Sylver A50 launcher. If fitted in the strike length A70, it could potential have an additional 2m of length added to the booster for a total length of 6.9m. It would give it a performance/range/height that is getting close to the Block 1 SM6. Worth a thought!
That was a bloody riveting read. Thanks Davey. Some interesting facts to ponder
Just think of that poor Aster dart, hurtling along at SM6 speeds!
I wonder why there was never a european “large diameter” air defence missile.
Aster uses a very particular “booster-dart” arrangement and CAMM, IRIS-T etc. aren’t very big.
Perhaps what we need is something like the Korean L-SAM, with a large, aerodynamic missile on top of a wide diameter booster.
Just have to look at the swooning over the F15EX to realise why the Typhoon line should be retained. Replace the T1s as a minimum, with new Typhoons fitted with the latest AESA radar and enhanced manoeuvrability pack.
Currently hard to see F35, in any form being ordered. Think of the Press coverage. Even so it will be years before a new aircraft appears, the war, if there is one, will be over.
I don’t think most would care about ordering more F35B for the carriers, we need them. Orders of new kit we don’t operate already, definitely.
It is certainly true that orders of any aircraft will take years to increase mass. If there is a fight we use what we have.
I wonder if our friends in the middle east would sell us some Typhoon back, if needed.
15% of every F35 is built in the UK.
And 37% of the Typhoon. I think we do quite well in the aircraft manufacturing field.
Not really, that might be the overall % across all 3 variants but the F35B has way more UK content. We should continue to purchase/order the B’s until we have enough to comfortably equip one QE at least. Typhoons are still pretty darned effective, especially the T4 versions and against any Russian adversaries.
If Tempest does evolve into the long range 6th gen air dominance and interdiction aircraft some of us expect, we are on to a winner. Even a massive potential export market given that F22 was never offered outside the USA and given Trumps tilt to defence budget cuts.
Italy on board, Japan on board, lets ramp this thing up and get a global aircraft building industry just like the days of yore and following on from our recent shipbuilding successes.
I think 15% of the spend goes to BAE. And much of their ancillary equipment is made in the USA
I feel a CAPABILITY GAP coming… someone tell me I’m wrong…
For me, production lines must stay open and skilled labour force retained. If this means ordering more Typhoons than we need or want – fine, it’s a long term thing that keeps our defence industry viable. Personally I would love to see our military a lot stronger than it is anyway. We need lots more…
With a serviceability rate just over 50% F35 is a lot dearer than it looks. Typhoon with AESA and conformation tanks has a lot to offer. Even a a tier 1 partner we have no access to the software. F35 is important but as a force multiplier. Would prefer to see money spent on project Ark Royal and loyal wingman. A UK one.
Typhoons with conformal tanks + an updated French nuclear ASMP.
Yes I think Europe seriously needs to look at increasing its nuclear weapons capability and go for a full triad.. part of that would be ASMP capability on typhoons and and a number of ASMPs for countries that have typhoons, 100 each.
Once you exclude the Tranche 1 typhoons and remove the 2 seater variants the uk will end up with 96 single seat tranche 2 and 3 typhoons.. that is not an adequate number to maintain 6 front line squadrons, OCU, test and evaluation, Falklands flight and the joint squadron as well as maintain a sustainment fleet.. the sustainment fleet should be about 20% min so 20 ish typhoons.. so that would leave 76…. 6 front line squadrons eats 72 before OCU, Falklands, test and evaluation and joint squadron which need about 25 between them.
So unless they are cutting the front line typhoon squadrons to 4 they need another order.. or they will run out of airframes and likely airframe hours as well if they have to keep. Typhoon flying into the late 40s
Most of the tranche 1 jets have already been scrapped under the reduce to produce program.
I propose stickING to the purchase of 48 F35b jets. Give all those to the RN, that will mean a full complement for both carriers.
Purchase 30 new F35a’s and an additional 40 tranche 4
Typhoons for the RAF.
Throw in 24 Alenia/Aermacch M346 trainers to replace the decrepit Hawks, and its job done.
I’d save money on the F35A and just get as many tranche 4 typhoons as possible and sort out GBAD for UK.
US military hardware sales in Europe are about to crash through the floor as the continent will now switch to indigenous production and it’s military industrial base will grow as a result
If we are really looking at USA backing off then options need to be a assessed.
RAF gets more of the German Spec SEAD Typhoon and more T4 Typhoon. Radar 2 on everything
Use what’s left of the special relationship and procure B61 nuclear bombs from the US ( or repurpose Trident warheads) and RAF buys 30 F35A for the nuclear deterrent option. Also means Voyager needs a boom.
RN gets the F35B
Alternatively buy some ASMP from France.
Actually l think you need to buy rafale jets to put the ASMP.Not enough room under the belly of the typhoon due to the front gear.
We needs F35Bs for the carriers, we have no need of F35As which would only increase maintenance and training costs (there’s only 30% commonality between the two types) as well as the issue that the F35A is currently incompatible with our tankers.
(Besides, why add another American aircraft to our inventory when they appear to be siding with the enemy these days?)
Instead place an order for latest Typhoons and donate any remaining Typhoon T1s to Ukraine. It might then lead to Ukraine purchasing newer blocks in future.
Pretty much most of the T1’s have gone now….. Besides, we would not have enough time to train Ukraine’s Pilots to fly them. Not in the same way the UK can.
You have to ask yourself in the current political climate, have European nations made a big error ordering F35 – any variant? What’s to say the US wouldn’t just cut support – though they’d be committing massive industrial self-harm to do this. The F35 block iv release to European nations may be at risk? Perhaps no more f35 orders and invest the money in Typhoon and GCAP instead. This outcome may of course spell the end of QECC or at least drive conversion to Catobar and Rafale.
It wouldn’t just be massive industrial self-harm, the US would be damaging its own military as foreign sales drives down the cost of each airframe for the US military. Withholding support or updates would see foreign sales plummet.
So no, we’re not going to buy something as bad as a Rafale instead..
I fear Trump will exploit this, the cost seems to be unimportant to him it seems. He is risking terrible hits to his economy by the sanctions on Canada they even get their Uranium from there let alone electricity to much of New York State. The economy is weakening, Canada is cutting US imports on masse, restricting the oil and rare minerals the US needs, China controls it’s vital Tungsten imports the markets are losing value but he and his acolytes are claiming everything is the best it’s ever been of course in Trump World, the lies just keep on coming. Warren Buffett is claiming the tariffs are effectively a declaration of war and he and the WSJ are claiming they are madness and a Norwegian company refuses to refuel or replenish US navy ships resulting in a submarine is having to return to the US, the Govt is telling people to keep chickens to get eggs, but hey I’m sure redneck central is, as Trump says excited at the possibilities of these exciting times.
I know nothing about these aircraft but why can’t they develop a typhoon for the aircraft carrier
Try searching Google about 25 years ago…… You might get some inkling about the reasons why Typhoon was not ever an option as an RN Carrier Aircraft, you might find some stuff about Cat’s and Trap’s and you might find some other stuff that relates to the difference between Typhoon and Rafale …. either way you re at least 25 years late in asking.
Development costs would be soley on the U.K. as nobody else operates cats and traps anymore.
It’s not just fitting the attachments for the catapult and hook, the entire airframe needs to be far stronger to survive the launch and landing stresses. The F35C suffers far more airframe issues than the F35B simply for this reason.
So you might end up with a Naval Typhoon costing 50% what an existing Typhoon does once the development costs are split across the handful built.
Hi Gavin l think it’s because the landing gear needs to be really reinforced, and because of the positioning of the front gear it can’t be reinforced enough. It’s also why the ASMP wouldn’t fit either , too big and not enough room under the belly because of the front landing gear.
One of Trump’s stated objectives is to increase US based manufacturing. Given the importance and widely spread manufacturing of the F-35 it seems unlikely to be put at risk by changing its support and enhancement plans.