Full Operating Capability for the British F-35 fleet was planned for 2023, it has now slipped by two years to 2025.
*****CORRECTION 28/10/2022 – This report conflates the 2023 Carrier Strike FOC – embarking up to two frontline units on the carrier, with the arrival of the 48th jet, this is incorrect.
The 2025 FOC milestone is the completion of the Tranche 1 delivery programme, when the last delivery of the 48th jet occurs, this remains 2025 as planned: FOC for Tranche 1 of the F-35 Lightning Programme remains as 31 Mar 2025, in accordance with the Central Supporting Group through Main Gate 4, Review Note 3 (MG4, RN3), dated 17 Jan 17; there has been no formal amendment to the FOC date since then.
Carrier Strike FOC occurs earlier with less aircraft in 2023, however, Lightning Force programme FOC = delivery of 48th aircraft remains 2025 as announced in 2017.*****
The information came to light via a response to a Parliamentary written question.
John Healey, Shadow Secretary of State for Defence, asked via a written Parliamentary question:
“To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what estimate he has made of when his Department will be able to deploy two operational squadrons of F-35s.”
James Heappey, Minister of State for the Ministry of Defence, responded:
“809 Naval Air Squadron is due to stand up in quarter two of 2023. Full Operating Capability for the Lightning Force is expected in 2025 at which point the Lightning Force will be able to operationally deploy both squadrons concurrently.”
How many are the UK ordering?
The head of the Royal Air Force has confirmed plans to purchase 74 F-35B jets adding that it is “possible” the UK may eventually have a fleet of 138 F-35s. The specific number was revealed by Air Marshal Knighton during a Defence Select Committee meeting:
“I have said this to the Public Accounts Committee, and I will set it out for Committee members here. We have on contract to deliver 48 F-35B aircraft. As part of our planning assumption in the IR and SR that we have just been through, we have assumed an increase of a further 26 F-35B aircraft, which would take the total fleet to 74. We have said that the decision about further purchase, beyond that 74, will be taken in the middle of the decade, in the context of what we decide to do on our Future Combat Air System programme. It is perfectly plausible to imagine a situation in which we could have the fleet of 138 F-35s that we originally described back in the early 2000s.”
Knighton added:
“We are in the process of negotiating that additional purchase beyond the 48 with the Joint Program Office and with Lockheed Martin. The Secretary of State has been very clear that the final commitment that we make to those aircraft will be dependent on the Joint Program Office and Lockheed Martin demonstrating improvements in cost associated with support and the integration of UK weapons. But we have set aside the budget for that increase and for the additional infrastructure, support costs and people associated with it.”
How will the fleet look, I hear you ask? Knighton answered that too.
“All 74 aircraft would be operational, but inevitably you will have a number that are in the operational conversion unit, teaching pilots to fly for the first time on the aircraft, and a number that will be going through routine maintenance. We are talking about a relatively new aircraft that will evolve, in terms of its maintenance cycle, over the next decade, but we would expect, for a fleet of that size, probably about 20% of them—something like that—to be in maintenance at any one time. If you want rough numbers, about 15 of them will be in maintenance, but as I said, that will evolve as we understand more about how we maintain this thing and how long it takes. That would leave you with 60-odd in the forward fleet.”
We reported recently that funding had been delegated for an additional tranche of F-35B jets for Britain beyond the 48 already ordered.
Kevan Jones, Member of Parliament for North Durham, asked via a written Parliamentary question:
“To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, when the planned equipment investments for (a) A400M and (b) F-35b will be delegated to the RAF’s TLB.”
Jeremy Quin, Minister of State at the Ministry of Defence, responded:
“Funding for a second tranche of F-35 Lightning has been delegated to Air Command as part of our recent annual budget cycle. Funding for Atlas A400M which not yet been delegated. A decision on future tranches of F-35B will be made in due course.”
For more on the planned additional A400M purchase see here, now, on to the F-35B.
I reported around Christmas time that the UK was undertaking “detailed analysis to evaluate the scale and timeline” for a purchase of a second tranche of F-35B Lightning aircraft.
Jeremy Quin, Minister for Defence Procurement, stated in December 2021:
“The 2021 Integrated Review confirmed our ambition to continue the growth of the UK Lightning Force beyond 48 aircraft. We are currently undertaking period of detailed analysis to evaluate scale and timeline for procurement of our second tranche of F35B Lightning aircraft together with associated infrastructure and support requirements.”
The former First Sea Lord said during a webcast earlier this year that the UK intends to purchase between 60-80 jets for four deployable squadrons, this matches with the above confirmation.
This is welcome news given the speculation the buy could be capped at 48.
A good accompanying article to George’s piece has been posted on Navy Lookout; https://www.navylookout.com/building-up-the-lightning-force-when-will-the-uk-get-its-f-35-jets/
Thanks for the link, great article.
Thanks for sharing, I had no idea our first 20 F35 need a $22 million upgrade to bring them to block IV standard. That’s about the cost of a tranche 1 to 3 conversion for typhoon. Thank god we did not waste our money and buy more early on. That means there is about 600 F35 globally that won’t be much use in future. $22 million to upgrade aircraft you can buy new for $79 million seems ridiculous.
They don’t all need a $22m upgrade.
That is only the earliest blocks that need that. And that would be four of the UK frames.
The more recent knew need a new main processor and some sensors added changed.
According to the article it’s everything before LOT15 which is the first 35 airframes we have on order.
I don’t think that is quite right.
Exactly why I have been saying this in response for years to everyone moaning that we only have a small fleet of aircraft!
Why spending tens of millions per air frame and have them out of service for however long to get the upgrades done when we can just wait and buy them factory ready, especially when we dont have enough trained crew to fly a larger fleet.
Sensible move by the decision makers even if it does fuel the headlines, carriers with no aircraft!
The argument only works if they aren’t needed before then. Had the Ukraine war gone differently and we had needed the carrier’s to protect NATO, that decision would have looked very different. That’s the issue with defense, you just don’t know when you will need it.
Ok if we had kept the harriers and not had a massive gap in capability then delaying it would have made sense no matter what, as we still had the capability if needed.
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… Read more »
Good news is that funds are in reserve to support further planes. Slipping FSO to 2025 should be the maximum period of delay to ensure the RAF can fully rely on the fleet beyond that date.
Delegated funding is not reserving the money. It is a planning assumption for an amount to be bid for at a given time.
Well, it’s an assumption that is as real as me wanting to win the lottery.
Me first 🤗
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!🎓😉
So according to the tables it’s whatever £1.4B can buy + the obvious spare parts and likely additional engines in the sale, I’m going to guess and say around an additional 10. Which over ten years and considering the current pressures is quite pathetic for a nation that has 2 aircraft carriers and RAF squadrons to fill. The same can be said for the a400, another £750 over ten years isn’t replacing the c130s that were losing. Hopefully the uplift that’s been promised doesn’t get swept under carpet so these additional airframes don’t become the cuts at which in reality… Read more »
Couldn’t agree with you more. Yet another delay. Mind you, we will be told any time now by others that nothing is really wrong and a delay is only to be expected. We’ll be lucky to get two or three small squadrons by the end of the decade at this rate.
And what’s your solution?
Have you not been reading this for the last two years?
One way out would be to let the FAA keep the B.models and the RAF in future buy some As. The build rate for the B’s is painfully slow due to it being vastly more complicated and other than the US marines nobody’s really buying it so more production space is available for the As hence other nations coming it late with an order but being able to get there’s before us. Being the only tier 1 customer it’s crazy that we aren’t constructing theses ourselves or say have priority in the build
‘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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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.
He doesn’t have solutions. Just fantasy fleets, and fantasy budgets.
😱
I get that Lockheed are having problems with the production/buy rate but realistically 10 or so over 10 years….
I know. Whoever is to blame it’s crazy.
There are 2 F-35 production lines: Forth Worth and Cameri.
There is also the Japanese production line that i think can be extended for international orders but i suspect the cost will not be very friendly there.
Virtually every manufacturer of everything electronic is having issues, look at car supply problems as a prime example. These issues will also be applied to cutting edge military equipment.
No one knows when supply chains will resume back to normality, it is going to take time.
Great points. Sadly I think that any rise in defence spending will just be swallowed up by inflation
More importantly is the plunging value of the pound against the dollar….that’s the bigger issue.
The world is on the verge a global recession (its already in one but no one really wants to admit it) the USD is usually at its strongest vs other currencies at this point of time.
It wont last forever but it is challenging making foreign purchases currently.
Problem is right now that £1.4B at $1.15 to £ buys a lot less than 3-4 months back when it was 1.37 or in 2008 when it was 2.02. I’m not surprise negotiations are dragging on with the current exchange rate I wouldn’t want to be making any milestone payment on an order.
Another question is are we dragging our heals because of pilot numbers, Tranche 1s retire in 2025, is that a coincidence :).
To be fair on the last point is some positive news, the only thing is are the pilots already on the latter models and how many tranche 1s actually fly?
Question on the above A, B, C models. Is there any cross-subsidisation going on with the F-35 or are each models treated as separate entities in themselves by LM? You would think or hope, that any or all orders, especially for common components and their costs would have some cross-benefits for the other models? Or is this too simplistic?
I agree you want to sign on the dotted line when the pound is a bit more bullish…. markets aways swing in the end so why sign the ink at the worst time.
On the flip side we should be pushing defence export like crazy atm to take advantage of the weak £
I think it’s essential that we fit a proper stand off anti-ship and land attack missile such as the JSM to at least half of the F35 fleet. Spear has a range of 80 miles and given we have no carrier embarked air-to-air refuelling capability and the F35 has no drop tanks, then it requires the carrier to be dangerously close to a hostile coast or warship to launch a strike. Indeed, I’m not sure what Spear is other than a job creation scheme. Too large and expensive to be used against low value targets and too short range to… Read more »
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. SPEAR primary role is SEAD and DEAD operations. It’s the first weapon primarily designed to take advantage of the F35 stealth capability.
SPEAR 3 reportedly, will have a range of approx 140km.
JSM will reportedly will have a range of between 185km to 550km, depending on launch profile.
The larger and heavier warhead LRASM, reportedly has a range greater than 370km.
JASSM-ER reportedly 925km range.
A lot more capable, and longer ranging weapons are available, far more capable than SPEAR3.
Don’t equate Spear 3 (a 100kg weapon) with the 1100kg JASSM-ER: that’s absurd. It’s more like a superior SDB2.
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
Given 8 can be carried internally on F35B, whereas most other AGM won’t fit I think it’s perfectly reasonable. If it does get anti ship capability it will be extremely valuable and if the EW variant is procured it will be amazing. The HARM has a range of about 90 miles which is not that much more than Spear. Given 8 can be carried internally on a stealth aircraft I am unaware as to what you mean by it being to short ranged for high value targets. We can determine what other missiles could fit in the bay. For EW… Read more »
What would **** up a modern surface combatant more, being hit by two JSM or eight SPEAR. Could any ship self defence system stop 8 SPEAR at the same time? SPEAR can penetrate a tank, in comparison a warship is a tin can.
Precisely my point, 8 spear 3 would annihilate most vessels.
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… Read more »
Thanks for such a comprehensive reply. I really appreciate it.
I’m fine with the idea of a stand off land attack or anti-ship missiles being mounted externally. Stealth doesn’t matter if your missile has a greater range than the SAM defending the target.
As I mentioned and no one has dealt with in their replies, a proper stand-off missile allows the carrier to be a couple of hundred miles further away from the target than is the case with Spear
The issue we have with that is that only two external hardpoints can carry most of these missiles, which are also the only two hardpoints that can carry drop tanks, when they can be added. Also the aircraft could then fall victim to enemy fighter jets. For an anti ship missile what you’re saying makes sense, yet if they have to perform attacks on land, then they have to be far off the coast due to SAM batteries and land based aircraft. If we buy missiles that can only be held externally doesn’t it seem a waste to have all… Read more »
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… Read more »
Appreciate this article. Always struggled to get my head around the actual numbers of active planes at any one time. If around 20% are in maintenance, the number of 72 gives 4 squadrons of 15 (allowing 12 to be in use at any one time) plus a further 12 for the operational conversion unit. Not sure what the plan for the 48 was. Two squadrons of 15 would give 18 for the ocu which seems a bit excessive. Perhaps 8 for the ocu, two squadrons of 14 and one of 12 (going to two squadrons of 11 and one of… Read more »
Delivery of the next twenty or so is “scheduled” for 2025/2026 so in service one or two years later if we’re lucky. The other twenty six probably not until the end of the decade.
If we are to make the most the F35 my own preference is for five squadrons of ten – two for one carrier as a minimum; one for the second and two for the RAF which with an OCU and trials aircraft allows for quite a bit of flexibility.
Yes, very fair point. I forgot there is that element to ordering air Frames (look at typhoon). I believe I read somewhere that this was the consideration behind the 138 f35s. I.e it was to be over the life of the program, so giving us much less than that at any one time. Would not be surprised if around 72 is the max number now, bearing this in mind. With scope to order more depending on how tempest plays out.
Your not the only one. Wright said the plan was for 3 operational squadrons with between 12-16 aircraft each. The 20% figure is tosh if the navy lookout article is correct. 65% hasn’t yet been sustained by the USA. Personally I think the whole idea of replacing the Harrier and Tornado with one type was poorly thought out. Give the navy all 48 aircraft and the RAF can get what they need.
I doubt the RN have the people or budget, and they certainly do not have the infrastructure to operate the fleet alone, sadly. Moving the lot to Yeovilton “closer to the carriers” like some have suggested is a non starter. They have near 100 helicopters based there, and have no F35 infrastructure or things like a HAS. All elements of the Lightning Force are “Purple” that is joint RAF/RN. Pilots, groundcrew, the JLFHQ, and all the rest. With a bigger military and budget I’d agree all Bs to the FAA and A’s to the RAF. But we are not at… Read more »
I always thought “purple” meant Army/Navy or Army/RAF (since Red + Blue = Purple). Blue + Paler Blue would just be… Blue.
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!
Wasn’t aware of the 65%. I’ll give the article a read. Yes the 2010 (I think it was?? One done by Cameron et al) wasn’t particularly good. It’s a miracle or extreme luck that we have two carriers and the other bits and bobs that we have
Your reasoning shows why a switch at this point to the A from the 48 B ordered would hamstring the carriers going forward. With aircraft in depth maintenance, reserve, OCU, OEU, leaves too few in the “forward fleet” to deploy to the 2 carriers if a surge is required in war. As it is, I’m happy with 74, added to Typhoon. With Tempest coming too, and hopefully UCAV, there is no money for more without a substantial uplift we all know probably won’t happen in the time required, or be cancelled by whatever government gets in next. Meanwhile, of course,… Read more »
If Tempest ever happens, which I doubt.
Which only reinforces my point regards the MIC if so. 9 billion of defence money is allocated to it for the rest of this decade.
Then it is cancelled. The military get zilch, and BAES fills it’s pockets.
If it gets cancelled before all that money is spent most hopefully goes back into the equipment budget and we will likely see some F35A instead along side the Bs.
It’s A or Tempest, basically. Combat Air budget has no more money to spare.
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… Read more »
Yes, it’s jolly tricky to juggle the best kit on the market with small numbers. As you said, it makes more sense to have greater flexibility if you have lower numbers, although I am aware of the advantages of the A Vs the B variant. As you say with tempest coming along and bearing in mind the typhoons and drones I think we are closer to getting the balance right. The only other concern is how best to replace losses. A large question which Ukraine has really brought to the fore for me. Maybe a large native drone manufacturing base… Read more »
Hi JohnG, Don’t forget our 3 experimental and trials aircraft will probably never see frontline service for a number of reasons, plus we have lost one. Doesn’t make much difference to a larger fleet but if we had stopped at 48 procured then your numbers for the OCU would be 14. Still a bit on the large side. The other thing to remember is that logisitics support system ALIS has never worked properly and will eventually be replaced (in part), so you can bet your bottom dollar that aircraft will be stripped of bits to keep others flying plus some… Read more »
The MOD stated that an extra F35B will be ordered to replace the lost one, so a total of 75 F35B will be ordered but 74 will be in service. The three trials aircraft could just remain in the OCU permanently.
Hi Louis, I am aware of the statement to buy a replacement. My numbers were based on the initial 48 procured. I would also point that subsequent statements are still talking of buying 24 additional aircraft making a total of 72 procured, 71 in service. Hopefully we will buy 25… I have also read that the trials aircraft are very early examples and not up to in-service standard. At least one is a fully instrumented trials aircraft as I remember and it has been suggested that these planes have also been modified as part the trials programme. Bring them up… Read more »
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
Really interesting feedback. Cheers.
74 aircraft should allow 48 aircraft in use. For me the best way for this would be to have two fleet air arm squadrons of 12 with one on each carrier. For the RAF three squadrons each of 8 would be ideal so that they could better disperse in a conflict. For a large carrier deployment the fleet air arm squadron assigned to the carrier as well as an RAF squadron can be assigned. With a USMC squadron of 10 maybe also embarked a total of 30 F35B’s on the carrier wouldn’t even be that hard to deploy.
I thought if it was only going to be 48, it was going to be 4 squadrons of 9 aircraft and 9-12 for the OCU (depending where I put the USA trials aircraft). The F35 is a huge leap in capability over harrier/tornado. They really are fantastic aircraft. Let’s get the 74 into service. At least just now a squadron could be deployed if needed. I would like to see the buy rate speeded up but until block 4 is ready it’s a bit of a waste. Just now money and efforts need to be put into getting pilot and… Read more »
First thing is to immediately increase defence to 3% GDP. Then cancel all cuts due. Then buy the full lot of F35s. They have to learn that penny pinching will bite you in the long run when a crisis hits like now and the pound is much weaker. Also the Americans won’t trust us if we do not buy the entire lot as promised, and we may not make tier 1 partner for another programme. Defence is the first duty of govt. All else is secondary. We are giving up all our power and influence by no tin vesting in… Read more »
Am I reading too much into the careful use of ‘F-35’ and ‘F-35B’ at different points – Is F-35A still in the mix for the latter stages?
Buying more B’s is moot until they sort out the weapons, currently the B is to limited only having GBU (can only carry out surface attack against undefended targets) or Ammram (current limit internal is 4?) so basically very limited fleet air defence. If we can get Spear3 and Brimstone intergrated will massively increase Surface attack and get the upgrade to 6 AAM internally plus 2 Asramm will make it a potent system if backed up by loyal wingmen with additional ordanance.
Is anyone clear on what milestones are required for FOC? Is it two fully stood up operational squadrons? If so, why is it going to take 2 years from 2023 for 809 NAS to be ready for the frontline? It can’t be Block IV software, because that’s not due until 2029, and only the final 12 aircraft we have on order before 2024 will have the right hardware to run it without retrofit (based upon the Navy Lookout article just out). It can’t be having Meteor and Spear functionality, because that requires Block IV from my understanding. Anyone help me… Read more »
The upgrade to Block 4 is constantly misreported, misrepresented.
Yes it is delayed, but it doesn’t ‘start’ in 2029, it is ‘completed’ in 2029.
Block 4 software drops have and are currently underway, additional capabilities have also been added too.
See figure 5 of the attached PDF:
https://www.gao.gov/assets/730/720256.pdf
I think I said ‘due’ rather than start, so expected full Block IV capability delivered in 2029 is what I was/am expecting. Thank you for that PDF, that diagram shows how it’s being delivered very clearly- I hadn’t realised that previously. I guess the question then becomes: Which bits are delivered when over the next 7 years, and how much of them are usable pre-final delivery? Of greater immediate concern to me is that only 12 of our F-35 will be in lots that will have full hardware support for BlockIV. The rest will require varying amounts of hardware upgrade… Read more »
Joe, I wasn’t specifically pointing the finger at you regarding the 2029 date, it’s just that when Block 4 discussions come up, most people appear to assume it doesn’t start until 2029, ok? As far as what’s happening with older RAF F-35 aircraft upgrades? I wouldn’t know, I would assume the RAF has been upgrading earlier airframes. What I do know is that the first batch (or batches) of RAAF F-35A were delivered as Block 2b or 3i, those aircraft were later upgraded to Block 3F at the depot maintenance level. As at now, all 54 or so RAAF F-35A… Read more »
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,… Read more »
Cheers for that, that falls more in what I originally thought so thanks for clarifying.
It’s interesting how different nations declare IOC and then FOC. Here in Australia the RAAF received its first F-35A in late 2014. IOC was declared in December 2020 (at that point one operational Squadron had re-equipped from Classic Hornet to F-35A, and the training Squadron had re-equipped too). FOC is due to be declared late 2023, when the last of the 72 aircraft currently on order is due for delivery. By then the RAAF will have four Squadrons of F-35A (3 x operational, 1 x training), nominally 18 airframes each. As at about a month or two ago, the RAAF… Read more »
The RAF might be slightly different (does anyone here know?) but this is how the RAAF defines IOC and FOC: https://www.airforce.gov.au/capability Capability In a military context, Capability is the power to achieve a desired operational effect. Capability is much more than just the aircraft, or training personnel to operate equipment. Capability describes the optimum combination of the organisation and its required: * personnel; * collective training; * major systems; * supplies; * facilities and training areas; * logistics; * support; and * command and management. Together, they need to be able to deliver a sustained effect, at the right time,… Read more »
I love the vagueness around aircraft numbers in the UK MoD.
We’re buying 74, CAS says that around 20% will be in maintenance at any one time; say 15 he says. That will give us 60-odd in the forward fleet he continues.
Er, doesn’t that mean no more than 59 available unless the maintenance cycle improves.
It’s quite incredible the amount of time it’s taking to get 809 stood up.
The F35 programme is a huge success for LM but a massive fail for its customers. For the UK, the failure is especially severe-we have spent £7b on 2 aircraft carriers designed to operate numbers we will never acquire. The carriers have almost no self defence capabilities so will tie up much of the reduced surface and submarine fleet to protect them. The small numbers of aircraft will have a very limited weapons capability for years to come. The availabilty rate of below 60% reduces any sustained capability still further. Partly driven by the cost of carriers and F35, our… Read more »
Massive fail for its customers? Really?
Is that why the F-35 customer base keeps growing? Why it keeps winning all competitions against other combat aircraft?
Maybe all those professional air forces are dumb, completely dumb, hey?
You and I don’t, and won’t, have access to the relevant classified data those many nations have based their selection decisions on.
It always makes me chuckle when people keep saying the F-35 is a failure (approx 850 aircraft produced to date too).
Yep, all those customers must be really dumb.
LM managed to sell the F104 to several air forces by effective use of bribery. Whether that has played a part in F35 sales, who knows. The promise of the programme was to deliver an affordable stealthy platform to replace 4 earlier types. It is 21 years since LM won the JSF competition and still the aircraft cannot meet 60 % availability (pretty vital for carrier operations). Support costs remain unaffordably high and key software systems dont work properly. Of course the aircraft works to some degree for some of the time. The question for the UK is whether buying… Read more »
Mate,
You are making assumptions.
Bribery? Conspiracy theories now too, hey?
And no I’m not a Yank.
I made an assumption from the use of the word dumb in the American sense-apologies.
Well said John
The carriers will last for 50 years, and maybe more. If they aren’t as effective as you’d like in the first decade, that’s pretty much par for the course. Whether the carriers have self defence or not doesn’t really affect the number of escorts and subs you’d expect to see in a carrier group. The reduction of the fleet size has little to do with getting carriers and everything to do with the continual reduction in budget. If you seriously think there would be more planes if the carriers hadn’t been bought, I disagree with you. The cuts in 2010… Read more »
The £16b extra was needed to plug a black hole in the equipment budget. A large part of this arose from cost overruns on naval programmes, including the carriers and Astute. The NAO reports make this clear. I was concerned about what we do now. To get full value for the carriers significant additional funds will be needed both for more aircraft and upgrades to allow integration of a more useful weapons range. Is this the best option for our limited budget? Even the RNs plan B, an Emals system for drones might be prohibitively expensive. Does the UK need… Read more »
The £16bn was used to plug a black hole, true, but that’s not why it was given. Adm. Radakin, Chief of the Defence Staff said it would not be used that way. The NAO said they feared it might be, but shouldn’t be used that way. Of course, that’s exactly how it was used, but not a Navy black hole, unless you could the CASD as navy. The hole in the real Navy finances is still there. You didn’t answer the question though. If you are right and I’m wrong, that £16bn was supposed to fill a black hole (and… Read more »
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… Read more »
i think everyone shares your frustration. As the Navy Lookout article points out, the full potential capability of F35 is heavily dependent on very large and very complex software. Anyone who has worked in the industry knows that the development and testing of military software is very difficult and there are always significant problems to overcome. But as stated, the fact is there is nothing in the West (if anywhere) to compare to the F35’s latent potential and capability. It will be interesting to see how Tempest develops once it gets past the concept phase and into development; there will… Read more »
As currently configured our carriers can only operate the F35B. Is it not time to consider STOBAR at least then they could operate the Gripen ir the Super Hornet and we wouldn’t be reliant on one aircraft type?
Correct me if I’m wrong on this ‘s but wasn’t MD has been demonstrating atimg the FA-18 Hornets ability to fly off a Ski ramp for the Indian navy and don’t the Chinese already do something similar? So I wonder if the the QE carriers had their ski ramps enlarged if there would then be a similar option for non VSTOL aircraft.
*sorry for grammar and typos…
STOBAR carriers are not a magic solution, there are limitations. So in regards to the QE class, yes you might need to modify/lengthen the ski ramp, not that complicated. But aircraft that operate from STOBAR carriers usually operate at a reduced weight, eg, less fuel and less weapons, that equals less combat radius, etc (they don’t have the assistance of a catapult). The major considerations is modifying the deck layout (angle deck) and also adding arresting gear. An aircraft landing needs to catch the arresting cables, if it misses (as does happen), you need the angle deck so the pilot… Read more »
I think the point about the B version being made is that the orders are for less than 100 excluding UK/USA against over 1000 A versions ordered to date.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/vice-admiral-sir-robert-walmsley-obituary-3x3qlpxmk
I suggest that as much as we disdain Defence Procurement, it seems there were people worthy of note working within.
RIP
Thanks @TonyB . A decent article and luckily not in the red top rags just at the moment. Its good to read all the well the informed detailed technical debate but it still comes back to the usual tale of PP decision’s being made by the MoD. A woeful tail unfolding, much like Typhoon, 10 years late but “getting there” and lets see what the outcome of FCAS-AP brings.