The Ministry of Defence has confirmed that the last seven F-35Bs from the UK’s first tranche order will not arrive on schedule and that Lockheed Martin will face no financial consequences for missing the original date.
In a written answer to DUP MP Gregory Campbell published on 19 November, Defence Minister Luke Pollard said the department “expects to have received all seven F-35B aircraft ordered in Production Lot 17 by the end of April 2026.” The jets had been due before the end of 2025.
A follow-up reply on 25 November provided further detail. Pollard noted that while the Lot 17 aircraft “should have been delivered by the end of 2025,” current planning assumes “four of those aircraft will slip into 2026 and be delivered by April 2026 (a three to four month delay from the original contract).” He confirmed that “there is not a financial remedy for the delivery of Lot 17 aircraft.”
The answers highlight the limits of the Joint Program Office system, where partner nations buy aircraft through annual production lots rather than through bespoke bilateral contracts. Because of that structure, the UK cannot impose delay penalties, even when slippages cut across its own force-generation timelines.
The delay means the UK will not complete delivery of its first 48 F-35Bs by the end-2025 target previously referenced in Parliament. The aircraft form the backbone of both RAF Marham’s Lightning Force and the Royal Navy’s carrier air group.
The MoD maintains that the revised timeline does not change its ambitions for expanding the fleet once Tranche 1 is complete.
In related news, a separate written answer on 20 November addressed personnel shortages in the F-35 programme. Responding to Conservative MP Andrew Snowden, Pollard said the MoD had “inherited a retention and recruitment crisis from the last Government and are determined to fix it.”
He outlined measures aimed at rebuilding the RAF workforce, with a particular focus on engineering roles. The MoD has “surged recruitment for the RAF” across all specialisms, including joining bonuses for engineers and expanded capacity in Technical Training Schools to increase throughput. To stem departures, Pollard confirmed the RAF has introduced a Financial Retention Incentive for engineers.
The government argues that fixing personnel gaps is essential to sustaining the Lightning Force as more aircraft enter service and as carrier operations grow more demanding.
Yet another argument for buying none American or making our own. That clown show of a nation doesn’t deserve our business
100% We have F35s for our aircraft carriers now (albeit might not be a full compliment). I wonder if they could use the money to buy more Eurofighters and boost the Tempest program. Would be good if they could speed up the program and maybe add more variants.
We do not have enough for carriers at all
Completely agree we need a minimum of 4 front line squadrons to make the airwings truly worth cost of 2 70,000 ton carriers… that’s is about 80 F35Bs at a minimum ( not including the 3 orange wired aircraft).
It would be illogical, if not plain stupid, to not continue to purchase the earlier muted 138x F-35Bs for carrier strike and purchase yet more aircraft for the light-blue to squander and mis-manage [in light of recent reports they screwed up planning the number of engineers]. There is no alternative to the F-35B, so until the UK gets off it’s behind and starts thinking about the sea [with a purely national alternative]. Suck it up.
.
.
Admittedly, some blame must also be attributed to the MoD, for being the clusters they are going from being a Tier 1 partner for the F-35 development programme, then [with the writing on the wall orders wise] loosing/dropping the ball and not committing as a Tier 1 production partner. Then out-doing themselves, yet again, in~2020 slowing the already glacial ordering of F-35Bs and making any subsequent orders [and build slots] more expensive and delivered much further into the future. Looking for more ways to out-do their stupidity, they then give the light-blue another bone and announce the 12x F35As to offer a less than token tactical nuclear strike option for the yanks [wait for the F-35A order to be reviewed upwards! The icing on the cake is the issues around integration of the strike missile options resulting in the aircraft using bomb munitions for strike missions [and the associated lack of access to customise the weapons system like the israelis managed to organise].
.
.
All this incompetence just erodes the core premise of the F-35B. Maritime deployments from carriers. Arguments or discussions other than that, just epitimises the sea-blindness and arrogance of those making them.
I disagree. The F35 still doesn’t have the requirements necessary for meteor and spear, so it makes no sense to buy the bulk of F35s now and to delay/defer orders until later. We also are short in military spending, so if you are delaying or cancelling any orders, then waiting longer or slowing F35s seems to be the least destructive and most pragmatic decision.
I think the decision to move towards a mixed fleet makes more sense then just stacking carrier strike. We can’t use two carriers anyway, since we lack the sailors and frigates. We should have 3-4 full squadrons of F35s for deep strike, CAS and air defence for the Army and British Isles. If we are going to fight Russia and China, then we need an air defence umbrella that can protect ground forces in areas that are contested, we need the deterrence of tactical nukes and deep strike. The F35B is ill-suited for deep strike, due to its lower internal fuel carriage capability, weight restrictions and smaller internal weapons bay. The same issue limits loiter time. We can’t expect Eurofighters to fight in contested airspace near to the frontline, they’d be shot down very quickly, and we have nothing stealthy to replace them. We are not prepared to fight the Russians or to contain China in a blockade right now. It has been a long time since we have fought a proper war against anyone who could shoot back.
There wasn’t an option, once the decision to go with a carrier without cat/trap we had effectively snookered ourselves from other options, not that there are any other options that come close to the capacity of the f35 and creating one from scratch ourselves would have been a bigger mess.
Rafale. Maybe not as sophisticated but more deployable, less maintenance and greater variety of weapons
It’s dated. France is looking to replace. Plus do you think a cooperation with France would have gone any smoother.
Cannot fly off our carriers.
Here is a suggestion! How about capping the F35B buys at 60 units and converting one of the carriers into a CATOBAR vessel. I know it’s going to cost 2 billion GBP to do so but here is the rationale.
1. The F35B is a dead end variant. Lockheed Martin in its coming upgrades of the F35 is going to focus on the C naval and A land variants. The STOVL B variant was primarily for the US Marines and RN, and it’ looking more likely that the Marines are going to be cutting back on their orders and focus their fast jet requirement on the upgraded 5.5 gen C variant promised by Lockheed, as the USN starts to focus its carrier combat power on the F/AXX (whether a navalized Boeing F47 or a 6th gen offering from Grumman Northrop). Remember the USN has never really been keen on the single engine F35C and thus them being flown from the carriers by Marine aviators as replacement for the retired F18C/D.
2. Once the conversation to CATOBAR is completed for one of the QE carriers (it will take at least 5 years), the RN can initially lease or buy used F/A18 E/F planes from the USN who will be in the process of retiring them for their new F/AXX or alternatively current model F35C while the RN waits to see what the promised upgraded F35C, pending F/AXX and French Rafale replacement are all about before making the decision to purchase 60 or so for the CATOBAR carrier.
3. If the RN ever gets to build a LHD (like the Italian Trieste), that vessel can share the 60 F35B with the remaining STOVL QE carrier.
Yes that GBP 2 billion conversion cost is the major stumbling but it will in the long run solve the problem of the obsolescence of F35B that is looming which in effect will negate the carrier strike force. In my view if the RN wants to be in the carrier “game” for the next 40 or more years then that conversion needs to be done because I don’t believe the Americans (Lockheed and the Marines) want to keep the F35B going much longer.
We can barely operate a Stovl carrier, zero chance we get Catobar and only for one of the carriers
Cats and traps required!
Buy enough to equip both carriers then run. Put any funds allocated for further f35 buys into speeding up Tempest development. I’m done with the US. They are no more trustworthy than countries we all but class as enemies.
You count the french as our allies I’m guessing? That’s a joke in itself.
We should be capable of defending ourselves without external assistance.
The Tories, Labour & LibDems are all culpable in our military inadequacy.
Give it a rest – it’s a four month delay – I think we will cope.
Presumably this deal affects all customer nations, not just UK? Presumably 3 of the 7 will be delivered on time? Frustrating as the US situation is, there is no 5th gen alternative to the F35. Hence the pressure on Ottawa from Canadian military to stick with F35 rather than step backwards to 4th gen Grippen – and why we’re unlikely to order more Typhoons. Roll on Tempest. On balance, and taking the long view, the US is having a difficult time, and when they’re having a difficult time that’s when we stick by our friends. My American friends are as appalled at the situation as we are on this side of the pond. But nothing, and no one, lasts for ever. So, cool heads and a safe pair of hands on stick and throttle, chaps. If the Russians agree to this peace plan…watch out for 2027. And it’s budget day…
Italy, Spain, Germany, Turkey all have new orders for Typhoon in the latest iteration so it can’t be that bad and the UK is upgrading a portion of the fleet and maybe could upgrade more if cheaper than new builds. The Gripen looks pretty nifty too. Ukraine’s planning on 150 so its okay for them and being in a real war scenario. How long can one wait for the perfect plane to come along? 2027? What about next year? Post Ukraine war, will Russia be trusted and how far? I think its prepare for ongoing and bulk up with what you currently have.
Your logic is quite right, but it seems that the UK military are looking further down the road. Even if we order more Typhoon – how long before they arrive? There are, I gather, 1900 fast jets and other combat aircraft (helicopters?) in European Nato (ie not including US or Canada).. we’re not fighting anybody on our own. The ramping up of Nato combined operations is something that shouldn’t pass us by. We hang together or we hang separately. Ordering more Typhoon is politically good, but as a recent Flight Global article points out… politicians shouldn’t make strategic decisions. That’s what the military are for, once they are given the policy. If we could have both more Typhoon and F35, great, but that doesn’t seem to be what the RAF wants?
Of course politicians shouldn’t make these decisions. We need to set up a poll on UKDJ.
Hah ha… yes, power to the people wot know!
In the end every airforce that can justify more than one type of fixed wing jet is still buying 4.5 generation aircraft.. even the U.S. because they have better sortie rates are more mature platforms and are cheaper to run for greater mass.. you need a tip of the spear 5th generation fighter to lead and act as a control node for your 4.5 generation fighters.. but the bulk of missions is still a 4th generation job.
This is fair comment… I just get ther feeling UK forces are wanting to move forawrd to new things quickly.. Ukraine has changed the landscape of war … cyber, drones, hypersonic missiles. How many old fashioned dog figts are there, or conventional straffing runs over massed tanks.. none I suppose? Someone will know. It’s all stand off and bomb from height, from distance. One things never changes – the poor so and so on the front line who gets butchered. Bullet, missile, drone, bomb… all the same when it explodes.
Great deal, well worked out with fair terms and we do nothing again. Every thing in the MOD is late, over budget or had numbers cut and thats after a rise in defence spending. Even the kit meant to be orderd from the review is delayed. Does any one know why? is it a change in whats needed, or is no real new money and hang on till next April then buy it as the MOD is out of money as spent it all on meetings and projects and service contracts?.
There are a few on here in the know and very well informed who can may be shed some light on this.
The problem is not at the UK’s end, it lies solely with Lockheed Martin and the US engine maker. The factual background is all set out out in great detail by the US Government financial watchdog, the Government Accounting.Office (GAO).
It lists a litany of failures in the programme. The one that applies here is that LM have missed their annual production targets by miles and aircraft completion dates are months behind
I.can’t remember all the myriad details, but one of the big issues is the late and patchy supply of parts and quality control issues by US suppliers. There sounds to be a shortage of skilled workers in general, particularly post-Covid, and a loss of expertise in advanced technology sectors, due to lack of aircraft manufacturing since the F-16/F-18 era.
More concerning than the production delays on F-35, LM is falling further and further behind on the tech refresh programme (TRF3). I can’t remember what’s all involved in TRF3, but it’s the essential prequel to Block 4, which will upgrade radar, sensors and ability to integrate missiles like Spear etc. Problem is apparently.software the writing.and testing of which is miles behind. It sounds like even a.dumbed-down version of TRF3 won’t be ready until after 2030.
The engine upgrade – is that P&W? – is also apparently miles behind schedule. It is supposed to increase range, reduce fuel consumption etc, but again is years away.
The most critical.voices in the US aviation press say that we have basically got a trainer aircraft so far until a Block 4 upgrades. Quite a lot of the early aircraft – those produced before Tech Refresh 2 – will not be upgraded and will need replaced in US service. If we have to follow suit, quite a lot of our 39 aircraft would need to be replaced.
Basically, it sounds like the aeronautical equivalent of our Ajax programme trainwreck, a super-advanced platform that is beyond the abilities of the US manufacturers.
Others here will know far more than I do about the tech issues involved in F-35. There was a very good long tech article about it, which I’ll try to dig out.
To be fair, delays with the engine upgrade were partly the fault of the US government. Rather than agree to an upgrade back in 2016/17 when it was first offered, deciding on the final engine configuration afterward, they argued over the two adaptive engine options for years, only to finally to give up and go with the upgrade as a final option. If we’d had ECU 5 years earlier, with the possibility of calling it an interim to appease the lobby groups, they could have debated adaptive engines at their leisure, without causing delay.
Thank you for you in site and information, would seem the F35 was put in full production before it was fully tested and up dated, and like our own MOD the DOD is a mess when it comes to kit, at least they order kit we just order more snacks and tea for endless meetings to talk about meetings about buying nothing,.
Lockheed faces no penalty shows exactly how much of a stranglehold the US weapons industry has on the UK
Shows how badly set up the F35 Projects Office contracts are.
The problem is that relevant scale penalties on a program this big would sink a defence prime.
The US gov is equally frustrated by Lockheed but we have no leverage
Indeed. One of the GAO’s financial gripes is that, even though LM have consistently failed to reach their planned annual output they still get incentive payments from the US Government. These are paid if the deliveries are not too late, which is a very odd way to structure a financial incentive plan!
But I suppose they need to keep LM is business and profitable…
One advantage the CCP have over western governments.. their prime contractors start to fail big and the CEO and other board members find their wealth confiscated, free rent and board for life in a prison.. or just plain Dead..china has executed more billionaires than the rest of the world combined)… that’s a big arse stick… also every Chinese company has a CCP shadow board.. the CCP don’t think they are delivering and bang the board is replaced (and likely in prison or dead soon after).
And, how little Influence we have !
Tier 1 partner, 138 on paper orders, cream first, Jam later.
Tier one for the development programme, not production.
Any reason why the UK hasn’t considered the 25mm gun pod for the F35Bs? Does the US, Italy, Singapore and Japan have them? It’ll be the same ammo as on the F35As. Might be useful and cheaper than missiles. Are they exploring the use of rockets for counter drone?
As the F35B fleet gets bigger shouldn’t the UK look at a second base for day 1/2 the fleet? Too many eggs in another no-GBAD bas(k)e(t). In a potential conflict there’s a risk to lose a fair chunk of the air fleet, same with the P8s and E7s.
*say
The gun pods are no stand in for missiles and carry very little ammo. And there are no anti drone rockets on F35
Good for CAS when there’s nothing else other than SoF
Could you ever justify the risk of putting what is essentially an irreplaceable national strategic asset at risk by getting in gun range of a ground target so it could fire 120 20mm cannon shells.. It’s a bit sick I know but if you were in an existential fight with a peer nation it’s better to lose that tactical ground engagement and what that means in loss of life, than to lose the aircraft… that’s what made tactical fighters like the harrier so important.. cheap cheerful and in numbers that you could risk them in the tactical fight.
I get your point – thought they were meant to replace GR4s and Harrier in the CAS role
Yep indeed and instead we got a gold plated and slightly dysfunctional strategic strike aircraft.. personally I think the RAF needs to look at a cheap light fighter that can do tactical CAS roles as well as second line air defence against drones etc..it needs a very high sortie rate, is cheap and able to run austere…essentially you could use the same platform as the basic jet trainers..
More likely, this is advantageous for the Govt and MOD. Do we have the pilots and engineers to fly and service more F35s? Maybe this action will delay a payment? Never accept the ‘obvious’…..
A slip of a few months is hardly worth getting worked up.about given the wider scheme of things.
There aren’t the pilots or ground crews anyway by reports.
It’s all well and good blaming the previous government. So….when will you be announcing an increase in RAF strength of 500 eh? 500 engineers and ground crews for the force.
Even if it doesn’t happen overnight, action it.
As usual, empty words. And no accountability beyond kicking them out for the next useless bunch.
Hello mate,
The penultimate paragraph states that they have already started to ‘surge’ recruitment for the RAF and that they are offering joining bonuses for qualified engineering staff, incentives to experience people stay in are also being offered. Trouble is we are talking about engineers here, experienced ones at that.
Experience takes time, so these people likely have families and we know the housing has been trashed after the private company maximised profits over service provision so the families are probably keen as hell to get out rather than risk their children’s health in mouldy homes. Marham is not due for new homes for quite sometime yet (a few years if I remember rightly). So money isn’t the only problem.
Even if we imagine that the rate of people leaving drops significantly the short fall will take years to put right because engineering apprenticeships take at least 4 years and higher qualifications could/would be more on top of that. Then these people would have build up the experience they need to take on more technical responsibility and leadership… This problem ain’t going to be solved in this parliament even if they threw 100’s of millions at it…
The trouble is it is easier, way easier, to break something this complicated than it is to rebuild and our forces need rebuilding badly.
My reading of the situation is that they are getting started on this issue on this force at least but it is early days and will remain early days for the next couple of years assuming that they stay the distance. I do not expect to see any real improvement for at least 5 or 6 years as that would represent the timescales for the current batch of new apprentices to start having an impact… Only some kind of genuine move to a war footing could speed up what is otherwise a peacetime process and I do not see any sign of that or even any calls for that kind of response from either front bench and senior party leadership. So for the time being it will remain a peacetime response and we are in a genuine confrontation with Russia the like of which has not been seen since the 1970’s or ’80’s.
It is a shambles and if we get a different party in government next time around, they’ll press the reset button again..! A peacetime reset button most likely!
If peace comes in Ukraine, Russia will be able to rearm and Putin will be emboldened if he gets what he wants which seems likely. eNATO will be up against it and we will be particularly vulnerable especially if Russia goes after our underwater infrastructure. I would be very surprised if Putin tried to take on eNATO conventionally, at least by design, but I do see him stepping up in grey area attacks big time. Why wouldn’t he?
That view only holds true if we genuinely improve our conventional deterrence posture while also increasing our ability to counter Russia’s grey area attacks, neither of which we seem to be doing with sufficient urgency. Yet..?
Cheers CR
Hi mate.
Agree with all points.
On Engineer numbers, their statement to “surge” recruitment is what I take issue with, it leaves so many holes as to what their definition of “surge” is?
10 people? 20? 30?
A solid commitment to raise to X amount, over X time frame based on the criteria you detailed would be more encouraging. As an Engineer yourself, you know the score there.
And not just Engineers, but other trades in the RAF.
That imbecile Cameron was happy to cut 5k from both the RAF and the RN in 2010 I recall.
Till then, it’s empty words for me from HMG, as usual.
On forces housing, a private company maximising profit! What a surprise, I’m against all outsourcing for that very reason.
That is very true.. you can blame the previous government for the complete fuck up around the long term capital programmes ( you cannot pull a new capital programme to build frigates by 2030 out of your wish list).and you can blame them for where we got to with recruitment and retention .but you can put the blame on them for what you are doing now to sort out the future.. in that you can have a really good recruitment and retention programme and start making a difference in that within a short space of time.. you can have the strategy our, you can have your manpower investments in place.. and have your recruitment, training piplines expanded, you can have your retention plans in place with your engineers and professionals locked in place for decades with golden handcuffs they are happy to have, you can even extended those golden handcuffs out to direct civilian entry as well as getting people back… there is no good reason not to sort our or at least be making progress in workforce within a couple of years.. five years it’s my honest opinion you can have sorted out any workforce issue ( and in this case I do have an opinion that counts because I was responsible for strategic workforce planning for one of the most complex and difficult to recruit and train areas).
They can thrown in a few free mats and a full tank of fuel.
Free next day delivery would be better.
better off getting a free coat of paint, I heard that is super expensive
We have bigger problems than this when it comes to ‘complacent’ delivery schedules, and I also wonder if MOD is entirely blameless in this case. Re. ‘boosting the RAF workforce’, I gather there is a shortage of maintenance engineers partly because MOD (supposedly) forgot to account for things like Annual Leave when working out how many it would need.
It sums up this government that they are so scared of the Trump administration that we are prepared to forego contractual penalties. One only has to look at the Ajax debacle and the Chinook HC2 upgrade in years gone by that this is not new when dealing with US registered companies.
will Meteor and Spear ever get integrated (what about Stratus)? seriously seems like the US always finds an axcuse to kick the can further down the road. I know revised target date is early 2030s, but I have my doubts because US would much rather sell its own weapons instead.
The whole programme is a shit show. Then we have the army copy catting with their own Ajax shit show. So much promised at huge expense with so little to show for it.
The MOD is probably not too upset about the delay. We don’t know the payment schedule for the delayed aircraft but it is quite likely that a substantial sum has now moved from the 2025/26 defence budget to 2026/27. That will help ease the MODs reported £2Bm funding shortfall for this year, which is causing some pain as exercises are cancelled, maintenance is deferred, and orders are postponed.
The 48 F35b for Batch 1 were paid for ages ago AFAIK,the Funding for Batch 2 (27) has been ring fenced for a while too.