Full Operating Capability for British F-35 jets delayed

I don’t think that is quite right.

Completely agree however it doesnt change the reality of what is possible, we dont have enough pilots or ground staff trained in the aircraft itself. Those cant be rushed in and take a long time to work up alongside the background problem of finances which we also dont have enough of.

Worst case the carriers will still get used housing mainly US aircraft and crew if it was ultimately needed. But thats a poo has hit the fan massively scenario.

Despite our limitations we were able to send a carrier strike group to the other side of the world with 18, 5 th generation aircraft on it which is more than anyone else.

Lack of trained staff seems to be a wider issue within the RAF. If you can train 20 pilots you can also train 60, it’s just a cost situation. Where there is a will there is a way, for example asking the US to train them.

Luckily no war, but the whole situation has been seriously poorly managed, considering we ended up with carriers with no jets to start with and still need the US to make them vaguely viable. Admittedly with two big projects (f35 and carriers) its understandable they didn’t entirely line up.

If anything the UK project (carriers) got completed in very good time compared to the F35 controlled project.

Regardless though the F35 is a completely new airframe and we are all aware these take along time to get to a point that they are fully capable, Typhoon is a prime example of how long it took to get to T2 and T3 iterations.

The two projects would always end up with perfect headlines for the Sun or Daily Fail of ‘carriers with no planes’. No scenario other than hanging onto the harriers would have not resulted in that.

Also training high numbers of pilots in cutting edge jets I really cant see being a simple case of multiples, the best of the best really are needed. We wont have a huge pool to choose from to start with so either standards slip and more are allowed through or we have what we have now.

That’s fine you can both win the lotto before me, I’m generous, you can both have your £10 wins, I’m just taking the £10 million roll over 😂🤣

Hi Jonathans,
There’s always a clever one!🎓😉

‘other than the US marines nobody’s really buying it’
Seriously ?

The FAA do not have the money, manning or infrastructure to operate a RN fast jet force. It would take 10 years at least for the FAA and god knows how many billions for the RN to operate the F35B on it’s own. It’s a nice thought, but it’s not going to happen.

It is a shame though, but If the joint working is there, then there is no need. If the Bs became a RN asset the bun fighting would begin, if the RAF own them and they operate of the RN carriers everyone plays nicer.

I have no problem with the joint approach. Joint Force Harrier worked very well. We just need the numbers to make the Lightning Force truly adaptable for carrier operations and land based deployments. Operating the F35B means crews can be deck qualified very quickly, with a far lower training burden compared to COTBAR operations. Once the numbers are in place, then the true potential of the F35 and the QE class can be unleashed.

Indeed, four squadrons of F35Bs will mean the RN could move from a light deployment of 12 F35s to suddenly parking a huge number of aircraft right next to where they need to be. As you say CATBAR cannot do that.

The unpredictability of how many aircraft the U.K. could deploy will be a headache for any potential opposition.

Except the Italian Navy. The Japanese Navy. Likely the Spanish Navy. The South Korean Navy. Apart from that you are right noone is buying the B model.😁

In hard numbers your talking 12 and 15 F35bs the Japanese have ordered 42 on top of F35A making them the second largest operator. US marines however have 340 on order.

Japan-42
Italy-30
Singapore- up to 12
South Korea- unspecified number
Spain- not confirmed but inevitably at least 12

Essentially anyone with a deck to fly them off and the money

…oh and very likely Singapore.

I’d like for Australia to have a squadron and a medium sized aircraft carrier to go with them. Might need more AAW Hobart’s and another tanker though.

Where are we going to find all that money for the aircraft, ships and extra manpower?

Not going to happen.

Have to disagree with you a bit here. If increased defence needs arise the government will find a way to pay for it. There’s the huge decisions on investments and training going on with the nuclear subs and needed infrastructures. Some of the remaining F-35As to be purchased could potentially become F-35Bs. I read somewhere that there was even talk of getting three more Hobarts which I think was linked to possible delays with the T26 Hunter. The Aus government is readily adaptable to our defence needs in a very pragmatic way especially to the Chinese naval threat in our AP region. I also like the additional Sea Hawk helo acquisitions too. Agree though, costs and manpower and timing are always big issues.

Mate,

Happy for you to disagree with me, no problem.

But you are wrong.

Money and manpower are huge issues, we need more manpower for all the others things due in the coming years, a carrier, etc, would blow those plans completely out of the water.

I’m old enough to remember when we did have an operational carrier, but ‘one’ new carrier today is a waste.

To do it properly would require more than one carrier (plus escorts), and I don’t want to see the LHDs amphibious capability watered down or lost either.

We won’t be going to ‘war’ on our own, if it does happen we will be part of a much larger coalition task group operation, with the USN in the lead.

I would rather see that extra money spent on long range strike capabilities, have the ability to hurt the enemy at very long distances.

A carrier doesn’t do that, it in itself becomes a big target.

Cheers,

Hi John, good points you make. I’m happy for you to have a different view too. All good stuff and all the experience and realism that shows through from yourself and others here. I like the Labor Aus Defence Minister Marles here. He seems a decent no nonsense kind of bloke, engaging with the issues and getting things moving. I’ll let them to prove me wrong too!!

I’m at work (but not working very hard…) so sorry for the briefish replies.

Work? Buggar that!

I’m relaxing with a smoke and a JB & Coke, or two, or three, or …..

Doesn’t get much better than that.

Someone’s got to work around here… Lol. Enjoy you drinks and don’t fall out of your chair!

Marles seems to be ok, on the surface so far at least.

But I detest an ALP Government, especially when the leadership is from the ‘left’ of the ALP (their ‘social’ agenda will eventually see the Defence budget robbed).

Remember what happened to Defence spending in 2013 when Gillard was PM and Smith was Def Min?

Albo has put Smith in charge of the current Defence review, I don’t trust them as far as I can spit.

Hope I’m wrong, but they have ‘form’ and not to be trusted.

I think now the sheer size of the Chinese armed forces in our region, especially their navy, is going to be focusing the government’s minds. It’s only getting bigger. I’m just wondering if the Chinese leadership will ever choose to use its forces pre-emptively and aggressively like Russia in Ukraine? And if they to they might get a bloody shock with the likely retaliation. It’s the “size of the fight in the dog”. You do wonder though how China has managed to acquire all their technological sophistication and military muscle so quickly. They might be good at parading it all and shooting it off a bit but they’ll get some coming back. Hope all the countries in the SE Asia region can stay strong.
Yes, I thought I recognised Smith from before. Hope Marles and Huston will have more sense.

Smith is widely acknowledged as one of our very worst Def Mins (regardless of which side of politics), he was a poor Minister in other portfolios too.

The stupid mistake Albo did was appoint Smith to head the review, it stinks of ‘jobs for the boys’, a dumb and amateur mistake.

I feel the result won’t gain bipartisan support.

“Jobs for the boys (and not for the girls)” seems to be on both sides politics. Got to hope for the best and sensible outcomes for Defence. It might even get Dutton fired up a bit!

Indeed. Nobody but the USMC. Apart from us, of course. And Italy. And Japan. And possibly Singapore. No-one at all, in fact.

The point being Lockheed are not going to open up another production line because Singapore want 12 F35Bs, it’s making it difficult for us to purchase more because of how the lots are allocated towards the As when the likes of Poland, Finland and Australia want literally 100s between them.

They might be build in Italy.

It would be bloody great if we could build the F35B in the UK in a spare back shed somewhere… Lol 😁 Sorry, tongue in cheek on this one.

You seem to think that the hold up is in final assembly. It isn’t. The entire supply base is struggling to ramp up production of all models. Having our own assembly line would achieve very little while costing a hell of a lot. That’s why Japan is closing their line down.

Having two completely different aircraft ( and they are) would come with financial costs…there is little benefit to the A over the B when you have Two huge carriers to carry the Bs anywhere in the world. The strategic mobility of the Bs is vast…the A’s not so much.

Everyone with a potential deck they could fly it off are buying the Bs, it’s such a game changer. The A is great but in the end it had the same limitations of most fast jets in that you need 10,000 of concrete and infrastructure to fly it from. The B changes the game completely…having a few squadrons of 5th generation strike fighters hiding in the see 500 miles from your Coast line is a very very significant threat indeed.

It’s a capability alright, nobody is doubting it. The problem we have is we’ve lost the numbers game, the government has committed £1.4 billion over the next ten years for additional purchases over the original 48 which are lifetime numbers not operation aircraft (47 now due to accident). Personally that is not good enough when half the typhoons go and tempest is too far away still to judge if it’s going to come into fruition, what does that leave for an airforce going into the 2030s?
If you look at the other nations in the flattop game they are also purchasing As on top of Bs, why is this? Also not for there navy other than US, which gets the best model Cs. Probably because they are being built in multitude greater number than the B’s so price point is lower plus offers much greater range and payload over the B’s, in essence is a totally different aircraft.
Yes it’s another airframe to be trained on but I’m a glass half full guy, the tranche 1 typhoons are going soon so that opens up pilot/ground crew availability. Why is Britain the only nation that can’t have both models when most first rate nations do? The excuses are endless no infrastructure, no budget, no pilots but that’s not good enough when we spend more on defence than anyone else this side of NATO and have similar commitments in peacekeeping/nuclear but still get a heck of a lot less out of it. It’s high time the government put in an independent auditor on the MOD and actually find out where the cash is being lost and make amendments, along with a realistic defence review in what we want this nation to be able to achieve.

The answer is simple. Most nations don’t have a tier 1 military with the full spectrum of capabilities to fund. Italy for example is buying F35A and B. But it’s Typhoons are less capable than RAF Typhoons. It doesn’t have a nuclear deterrent to fund, or nuclear hunter killer submarines. It’s Air Force doesn’t have the strategic airlift capability that we do. Or the ISTAR capability. The list goes on and on. Upgrading Typhoon with Radar 2 plus many other very important upgrades isn’t cheap. We go for capability over numbers. It is frustrating getting F35B numbers up to the level it needs to be. But we have still come a very long way from the Invincible class with 8 Sea Harrier’s. The F35C is a,little cheaper then the B, but comes with a far higher training burden, so overall the QE class with F35B is the best value for money versus capability.

How many other nations are developing a sixth generation fighter? Or have four ballistic missile submarines? Or have the power projection we do?
The MOD have already stated that a replacement aircraft will be ordered on top of those others mentioned.

😱

I think you missed the point of my comment/reply to Jim.

He said: “SPEAR is probably the most useful weapon in development by any airforce on the planet. It’s not an anti ship missile though although having 6 of them fired at a ship will likely Mission kill any vessel.”

He said it’s not an anti ship missile, and then went on to say how it could be used as an anti ship missile.

I was pointing out that there are far more capable weapons, with longer range too, longer range makes it much safer for the pilot and aircraft delivering the weapon.

Understand?

Yes, thank you. I’m not a complete simpleton. MY point was that you cannot compare the range of far larger, more massive weapons which cannot be carried internally with that of SPEAR 3. Essentially your point had no point at all. Lightnings are slated to carry SPEAR 5 (i.e. FC/ASW) when that comes into service.

Simply put you don’t need that much bang to disable a warship. What you need is the warhead to hit the ship in the right place. As a F35B can lug 12 spear threes a single flight cane put 24 Missiles in the air, these are networked missiles that will work together to attack from differing cardinal points as well as target specific systems. They can even have their own dedicated EW missiles in the swarm That is likely to overwhelm Anything less than a top end integrating air defence system, even then its challenging It will also remove any ship on the planet from the fight when the missiles hit, one in the machine space, key sensors and command and control and the ships doing sod all.

firing 4-8 heavyweight anti ship missiles is far more likely to end in all the missiles being intercepted.

As for range….radar range means that unless you are going up against a fully integrates air defence system with aerial assets your not detecting a fighter at 140km that’s sneaking up on you. If your radiating they will find you way before you detect them, then they will fly under your radar horizon until they are in a happy launch place, pop up for a quick look, launch and sod off….that’s just what the Argentinian airforce did with its super entendards with a far shorter range missile than the spear 3.

Without layered and integrated soft kill and layered hard kill?

Well in that case 8 spear 3 would face a much better chance of a hit than two larger missiles. A spear 3 to the radar and another to the bridge would render a warship useless. If we are fighting the Russians only one would need to get through, aimed at the missile storage.

If we’re fighting the Russians only none would need to get through; even if all were shot down some dopey Russian sailor on a fag break will likely burn the ship down by accident!

😂😂😂

Aim for the vodka storage. Without the ability to get bladdered the peasants will mutiny.

That remains to be seen. Currently Spear-3 uses the Brimstone’s millimetric radar. Very little is available of what type of radar it is apart from its operating band. Is it a traditionally mechanically scanned pulse-doppler, PESA or AESA? The type of radar it has, will significantly alter how it will be affected by countermeasures.

A point to note is that the vast majority of aircraft that have radar warning systems, that are currently on the market, operate between 2 to 20 GHz or L to Ku bands. A ship’s electronic surveillance monitoring (ESM) equipment operates down to VHF frequencies. But very rarely goes above Ka bands (over 40GHz).

In essence there is a very good chance that a ship will not detect the Spear-3’s active radar. Its 3D volume search radar may spot it, but as it’ll be sea skimming, it’s not guaranteed. IT will need something like Samson or Spy-6 for a better chance of detecting the incoming very low-level threat.

A ship may deploy chaff in response. But the foil covered fibre glass strands need to be cut to 1/2 and 1/4 wavelength to match the Brimstone’s frequency. The majority of anti-ship missiles use X-band radar. If you now need to mix in W band lengths, within a chaff cartridge, the average volume for X-band will need to be reduced. Which will make the bloom cloud less dense and therefore reduce coverage. Unless the system can be integrated with the ESM, where it can tailor the chaff cartridge to the threat radar.

Similarly with deployable inflatable decoys. These will have significantly less effect at decoying Spear-3. The reason is that the Spear-3 radar can produce a photo-realistic image of the target. Hence why it can target specific areas on a ship. This means it will map out the shape of the decoy and compare to a library image. As it won’t match, its likely it will be ignored.

Electronic jamming may be the most effective countermeasure to Spear-3. But Spear has a home on jam mode, as its part of its SEAD/DEAD mission set. Then there’s Spear-3 EW. Fitted with a DRFM RF analyser and transmitter. This can really mess with jamming systems and active radars.

Much like Brimstone, I think Spear-3 and its EW variant could be a game changer when married with a F35.

Thanks for another great reply.

As you say, a weapon like JSM would compete with an external pylon for drop tanks. You could split the plyons though with a tank on one and a JSM on the other. I’m pretty sure that French Super Etendard’s used to fly with tank under one wing and an Exocet under the other.

The internal bay could either be left empty to save weight and further extend range, or if there is a fighter threat then it could carry two AMRAAM’s

No I agree with what you are saying, but in a high SAM threat environment, which would mainly be over land, stealthy F35B can be sent in with EW spear to take out SAM’s or with normal spear to take out a specific target.
I agree a heavyweight anti ship missile should also be procured but having both a lightweight while stealthy and a heavyweight whilst not stealthy option gives more flexibility.
You would also hope that a destroyer or two protecting a carrier group would be able to to shoot down four JSM’s/8 with no drop tanks from a flight of four F35B, whereas the same flight could fire 32 spear which would be very hard to shoot down all of them. Whilst a single spear wouldn’t destroy a ship, if it hit a destroyers air defence radar, a carriers bridge, or any other vital bits on a ship it would put the ship out of action for some time.
I am unaware if pylons are able to be dropped off, because imagine if an F35B could fire two heavyweight ASHM from far beyond radar range, and then become stealthy to get closer and fire 8 spear to destroy other ships.

I always took it to be Tri service or a mix of.

Maybe there are some army in JFL….somewhere…!

Anyway, my point was to DW that it’s not so simple to just “give them to the RN” without disruption as the force is….Blue! 

I’ve argued before that A’s could be an option. With most F35 deep maintenance being at designation locations irrespective of the type and common cockpit and software a lot of the type argument are being overplayed. Other countries like Japan don’t have an issue with a mixed buy and we have maintained a mixed Typhoon fleet and will continue to, with upgrades, like radars, to Tranche 2s take several years.

With the £ at an all time low and the A costing 20% less and offering a capability boast in terms of range and weapons load, surely we need to see some proper analysis. But to be clear we do need more than 48Bs

Recent articles around the F35 re-engine have highlighted that the purpose of the f35 is commonality and being able to forward base with partner who have F35 infrastructure is part of the construct. This would be undermined if there’s another engine but it highlights that UK can forward base F35s with partners if required. I believe US F35s based in Japan just deployed to Australia.

It was 26 extra aircraft for a total of 74(75) but including the three trials aircraft, which as you have said are unable to be upgraded. Hopefully these aircraft could be retired and replaced but it will be in the next decade when that will happen. Would make a great gate guard though.

You are correct, my mistake…

I do like the idea of F35 gate guards…

Cheers CR

I hadn’t realised that block 4 was ‘ready’ and its just the rollout thata the issue is that the same across all the variants as you specifically mention the A ?….I thought LM were dragging their heel on itsavailability for the B hence the ‘pressure’ our governement put on when they stated they wanted more F35B’s So is our lack of block 4 capabilty (inc. hardware upgrades) merely a rollout issue, as if so that makes it even more ridiculous tbh.

Mate,

I think you’ve misunderstood.

Block 4 is not complete, but it is in progress, it was to be completed in 2026, it’s now due for completion in 2029.

There are two distinct ‘ingredients’, one is the Tech Refresh 3 (TR3) hardware that will be included in new built airframes from next year (2023), and will have to be retrofitted to existing airframes.

The other ingredient is the dozens of individual ‘software drops’ that have to be uploaded to each airframe.

(Think downloading software, or virus, upgrades to your PC or laptop).

Since the original Block 4 plan was made, the yearly number of software drops have been delayed, capabilities deleted (Turkish weapons), and a whole bunch of ‘new’ capabilities and weapons added.

What I don’t know is what software drop is for which new capability (sensors and weapons), and which year that software drop is due to be made.

If you look at the attached image you can see year by year how many software drops are being made.

A good question to ask the UK Government is ‘in which drop/year’ is a particular capability planned to be added?

Cheers for that, that falls more in what I originally thought so thanks for clarifying.

I made an assumption from the use of the word dumb in the American sense-apologies.

The announcement of the £16b was accompanied by a lot of talk about new cyber etc and further funding of Tempest. But the reality was that the money was needed to bring the 10 year equipment plan in to some sort of balance.The deputy director of RUSI observed-” It also makes clear that the extra money for defence equipment will largely be spent on funding existing, albeit previously underfunded commitments-not on entirely new programmes”
The shortfall was in the 10 year plan but most of it would arise in the years up to 2024/5, hence the 4 year uplift.
Of course the carriers plus F35b are not the sole cause of the funding problem. But the 2008 final decision to buy them was not accompanied by additional funding so an existing problem was made much worse. Slowing the build(a usual tactic) spread the problem forward but increased the cost from £3.5b to £7b.
The F35b is not getting any cheaper with LM indicating price rises in $US. The £ cost will rise even further. Support costs are not falling despite promises from LM.
So given the limited capability of the aircraft over the next 6/7 years, is it sensible to spend even more on it?
We now have an unbalanced surface fleet built around what so far is little more than a token capability.
I thought in 2008 that the carrier decision was unwise. I have seen nothing yet to change that view.
Meanwhile, RAF combat aircraft numbers are far too small and the army’s equipment is largely obsolete.