Three more F-35B aircraft are being delivered to the UK, bringing the fleet to 25 aircraft.

The aircraft are being flown from Texas to RAF Marham (via MCAS Beaufort) and assisted in crossing the Atlantic by a Voyager tanker.

Three more jets will arrive later in 2022 and seven more will arrive in 2023 with an expectation that all of the 47 in the first batch will be delivered by the end of 2025. Note that it would have been 48 if one didn’t crash.

The then First Sea Lord said during a webcast last year that the UK intends to purchase ‘around 60’ F-35B jets and then ‘maybe more up to around 80’ for four deployable squadrons. The total of 80 is welcome news given the speculation the buy could be capped at 48.

A defence insider informed the UK Defence Journal of a live webcast given today by the First Sea Lord.

“The First Sea Lord has just said 60 F-35, then maybe more up to around 80 for 4 deployable squadrons.”

According to the recently released Defence Command Paper titled ‘Defence in a Competitive Age’, the UK intends to increase the fleet size beyond the 48 F-35 aircraft it has already ordered. You can read more about that by clicking here or clicking the link below.

UK looking at ’60 and then maybe up to 80′ F-35B jets

Since the delivery of the first jet in 2012, the United Kingdom F-35 programme has expanded tremendously. Recently, the UK fleet reached a new milestone, when it crossed the threshold of 10,000 flight hours. This milestone has been nearly 10 years in the making.

In 2012, the first F-35B was delivered to the UK. Here’s a look back at some of the programme’s most significant milestones over the years.

 

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

178 COMMENTS

  1. If these are on time – and on budget – it is good news. Well done all concerned. Lets hope the remaining Typhoons get their new radar on time too.

    • We expected 6 in 2021, 022-027. Given COVID, think getting the last 3 a month and a half into 2022 is tolerable. No idea about budgets

      • The problem is they take 2 years to build. These ones were not that affected…its the next deliveries where we really take the hit…

        We were supposed to get 6 last year, we got 3, 3 rolled over to 2022.

        In 2022 we were supposed to get 8, we’ll now only get 3 of those, the 5 missing will go into 2023

        Then the next 13 aircraft which were to be delivered over 3 years (2 in 23, 4 in 24 and 7 in 25) are not even contracted yet….Full Rate Pricing has yet to be agreed….the timeline, which was end of 2024, now end of 2025 for the full ’48’ might slip further away if something doesn’t happen soon.

        Which means that 809 NAS must be delayed in going operational, particularly given that we’ve also lost 1 aircraft (which was also one of the most recent a/c we had). It remains to be seen if MoD will tag on an additional a/c order to cover the loss.

        • Surely the MOD will have to order an extra plane to cover this loss? If you look at the numbers, we can expect to lose one every few years if we have two carrier air wings in operation?

          As with everything to do with the MOD, it’s always just less than enough, always under-armed, cut here, cut there.

          Sadly, it appears many nations have forgotten what a hot war means and what it costs. It also appears this country has forgotten just how close it was at the start of the last 3 European wars this country got involved with. Our “luck” will run out at some point. The only way to ever be sure we won’t is to have a strong defence in quantity and quality.

  2. Good news, we are getting to point we can put a significant number of UK owned F35’s on a Carrier, Carrier strike will really start to get into its stride in the next couple of years.

    Given the changing geopolitical situation, I think it would be prudent to also order a batch of 24 of the latest spec Tranche 3 Typhoons to replace the outgoing Tranche 1’s, (complete with UK radar 2) and retrospectively bring all the previous Tranche 2 and 3 jets up to the same advanced standard.

    Our Air Combat capability is now so small (and will continue to be so until the promised UCAS revolution bares fruit) that we better make sure our few assets can pack a real punch.

    • The smart move is to buy 24 Typhoon ECR with the German’s. Far more utility to the RAF in a war. Keeps Warton busy and is a huge increase in NATO’s capability. Developing the EW capability is also a useful sovereign asset to have. They’ll still be fighters but with an extra capability.
      Agree on Radar 2 gong on everything. But I’d still retain T1’s, use their hours up on Falklands, Aggressor training and QRA.

        • Yes, agree wholeheartedly.

          The RAF’s air combat fleet has been reduced to a miniscule size. On paper, it is down to 154 fighters. As only 50% of these are front-line, it gives ta total of just 77 planes to handle UK air defence… interdiction/attack… forward flights in Estonia and Falklands… close air support of land forces… air support of the littoral combat groups.. and that’s before anyone starts thinking about ‘global Britain’ deployments to yet more far-flung places. That is impossibly thin.

          But it is not 77 planes available, because the RN wants 24 or 30 or now 40 of them for the CSG. It is aĺl very well to claim the F-35s are a joint RAF-RN force, but the aircraft can’t be in two places at once: if they are off on the carrier, as the RN will undoubtedly want, they simply won’t be available to the RAF for the more important strategic air duties.

          So the RAF front-line strength falls to 53… or 47… which is just pitiful and would not last a week in a peer conflict.

          Leave aside that the F-35b is not what the RAF wanted or needs – far too short range, too limited a weapon load – it would serve a useful purpose as a SEAD asset against A2AD, basically suppression of an S400 SAM defence. Instead, they will be supporting one carrier group doing its own thing somewhere over the horizon.

          So yes, we must keep the 24 Typhoons scheduled for the scrapheap, they have half their active lives left and we cannot afford to cut force levels further. No reason we should not follow Spain in upgrading them, the Spanish have done so without fuss or problems.

          Yes, we could do with a further batch of new Typhoons to plug some of the gaps, even 16-24 would go some way.

          What the RAF really needs are 72 F-35As, which have a better range, bigger payload and are £20m less expensive than the Bs, to re-form some offensive air/interdiction capability.

          Problem is there is no space in the budget, combat air procurement from 2018 to probably now 2030 has completely been taken over by the Navy’s quest to have an aircraft carrier strike wing.

          Strategists may well be very doubtful about the value of one aircraft carrier in a peer war at the expense of strategic air power that for another day.

          • “So yes, we must keep the 24 Typhoons scheduled for the scrapheap, they have half their active lives left and we cannot afford to cut force levels further. No reason we should not follow Spain in upgrading them, the Spanish have done so without fuss or problems.”

            “Yes, we could do with a further batch of new Typhoons to plug some of the gaps, even 16-24 would go some way.”

            I couldn’t agree more Cripes, the sooner we take these out of storage the better.

            If the government haven’t learned a lesson on how weak our armed forces actually are now due to cuts and fail to increase the defence budget to make up for the shortfalls we have across the board then we really are in trouble.

          • So how would you pay for these new build Typhoons? Whilst also securing Tempest, upgrading Typhoon with Radar 2, Striker 2, Wide area display and many other upgrades which will not be cheap (£320M just to develop the radar). You bang on endlessly about the cost of block lV, but ignore the very expensive Typhoon upgrade cost. If you could ask any RAF fighter pilot what we should buy to increase RAF combat air capability, they would all say the same thing, even experienced Typhoon pilots………….Buy more F35’s. It’s capability in the air on exercises, and operational deployments speaks for itself. Hence why it’s winning every fighter competition going. These nation’s are not daft, they completely understand what yhey are buying into, and see data we will never see. Now I’m not arguing against buying more Typhoons, but we have to be realistic about what is achievable with the current defence budget. And without the industrial experience and technology transfer from building F35 abd being a tier 1 customer, Tempest would be even more of a pipe dream.

          • How do we pay for more Typhoonns? Budget allows for 6-7 aircraft a year, none are currently on order for the years 2030 to 2035, RAF can therefore order 36-42 more fast jets before Tempest becomes an item.

            Ref the long list of upgrades to Typhoon and Block 4, do remember that about a third of the combat aircraft budget goes on new aircraft , the rest covers upgrades, new kit etc. And many of the new weapons are developed under a different budget, Complex Weapons.

            Rrf the rather sweeping statement you keep making about ALL pilots who have flown the F-35 saying they wouldn’t want anything else, what is your reference for this story?

            It sounds to me like PR from LM because the bosses of these supposed pilots seem very unhappy with just about every aspect of the thing – cost per flight hour, limited range, cock up with ALIS and its slow replacement, astonishing delay on Block IV and so on.

            When you say that everyone’s buying the F-35, you need to be a little more accurate – they are buying the F-35A version. Hardly anyone has bought the B version, just those who operate what the US defence press terms ‘harrier carriers’. Us and Japan, a handful for Italy and Singapore. The B is bo great export success.

            The navy boys in the MOD and on here are so determined to get Bs and have a carrier to rule the waves again – if you can with one small VSTOL air group – that I feel they rather exagerrate the value of the B and come up with every reason under the sun why the RAF should not buy anything else.

          • Sorry, Cripes, but the combat air budget isn’t for 6-7 a year all the way to 2035. 48 F35s are on order, and more will follow when the MOD decides the time is right. And Tempest is far from certain of becoming a reality. But I do hope it does. I have never argued against the F35 technical problems delays and cost overruns. But they are in no way different to any other fast jet project of the last 40 year’s. Just on a larger scale due to the vast size of this project. I will defend its capability, as it’s proving to be outstanding, even without block 4. A few articles below that offer a rather more balanced view of the F35.

            https://www.sandboxx.us/blog/how-the-f-35-flies-the-line-between-failure-and-success/

            https://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/551328-get-real-the-f-35-is-the-combat-power-america-needs

            https://www.sandboxx.us/blog/an-f-35-pilot-explains-why-the-jets-bad-press-misses-the-point/

            https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2021/06/25/five-ways-the-air-forces-f-35a-fighter-is-becoming-more-affordable-to-operate/#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=16433044852525&csi=0&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.forbes.com%2Fsites%2Florenthompson%2F2021%2F06%2F25%2Ffive-ways-the-air-forces-f-35a-fighter-is-becoming-more-affordable-to-operate%2F

          • The f35b is the worse of the f35 it carries less weapons fuel and slower turn if the navy knew they were getting f35 why not the f35c that carries more weapons and fuel than any other f35 so and they could carry more diffarent aircraft then put it this way with a good radar I’d rather be in a typhoon than f35b as once you’re spotted in a f35b your dead remember they got radar that can spot stealth fighters now so the typhoon is faster moves better and carries a lot more weapons than the f35b So what master mind not to put carts and traps on the carriers

          • The talk about weapons capacity difference between the F35A/B is a non story for the RAF. F35A’s internal weapons bay’s are longer compared to the B’s. The F35A can carry 2 x 2000lb class weapons, F35B is limited to 2 x 1000lb weapons. The key point is the RAF never planned to use 2000lb class weapons. Even the Typhoon does carry Paveway 3 (2000lb) anymore. The primary weapon is the 500lb Enhanced Paveway 4. 2 are carried internally with 2 AMRAAM/Meteor, and another 4 Paveways under the wings when stealth isn’t so important. F35B will also carry 8 x SPEAR 3’s internally. ASRAAM is also integrated. 👍

      • my understanding is that Radar 2 will have an advanced electronic attack capability – this would probably put them ahead of the German ECRs with Captor E radar 1 in capability.

        • The Typhoon ECR proposal from Airbus for the German’s (which I believe is more likely to go ahead than EA-18G) was actually equipped with the UK’s Radar 2, not the Hensoldt Radar 1.

          Even the German’s believe that Radar 2 will be massively superior…

      • F35B will have electronic attack/DEAD modes with it’s current radar, and is an ISTAR asset in it’s own right. SPEAR 3 abd SPEAR EW will be available on both F35 abd Typhoon. Also ECR Typhoon doesn’t exist yet. And won’t enter service until the very late 2020’s. A podded solution might be available from 2026. An ECR varient isn’t part of the 38 new build T4 Typhoons for the German Air Force.

      • The Tranche 1 aircraft are only capable of air defense duties, and are not able to be updated to later equipment standards. The fleet is suffering from a lack of spare parts, many of which are no longer produced. Many aircraft are grounded to act as spares sources for the remaining active aircraft. This is what happened yo a,bunch of RAF T1 Typhoons. Spain has updated its T1 aircraft, but this is only a relatively limited upgrade, and nothing close to the standard T3 aircraft will be capable off. Only 19 T3 Spanish Typhoons are currently planned to receive E-scan Mk 0/1 radars

      • I thought the Germans have gone for a Growler route for SEAD and Superhornet as nuclear capable platforms , along with 40 Typhoon Tranche 4, which will have a less advanced radar than radar 2.
        Typhoon ECR was mooted but is only a concept, and would probably cost a bomb.
        Radar 2 plus EW spear 3 will have substantial Sead capability for the RAF.

        • The new German government is reviewing the super hornet and growler purchase it seems more likely now they will go for typhoon ecs and f35 instead.

      • Retain and upgrade!

        It appears Uncle Albert is still providing uninformed information as usual!

        February 27, 2019

        Spain receives first upgraded Tranche 1 Eurofighter fighter jet
        “The Spanish Air Force has received the first upgraded Tranche 1 Eurofighter single-seat combat jet from Airbus as part of a contract.

        Airbus performed the upgrade at its facilities in Getafe.

        The enhancements included the introduction of hardware modifications, which support the Operational Flight Program 02 (OFP-02) developed by Spain’s Armament and Experimental Logistics Centre (CLAEX).

        As part of the upgrade, the company integrated Tranche 2 and Tranche 3 equipment on the aircraft, including a computer symbol generator, digital video and voice recorder, laser designator pod and maintenance data panel.”

        https://www.airforce-technology.com/news/spain-receives-first-upgraded-tranche-1-eurofighter-fighter-jet/

        • Digital videos and Voice recorder and targeting pod. Equipment that was in service with RAF Typhoons from 2008. Keep up Nigel. An upgraded Spanish T1 Typhoon will still be a world away from the capability an RAF machine will offer in a few years time. Or even today after project centurion. And only 19 Spanish Typhoons will receive E-Scan.

      • After a quick search 2029

        “Operational analysis has indicated that the even-more-advanced Block 4 configuration is necessary to be effective in a conflict with China,” the report stated. “However, challenges with maturing all of the Block 4 technologies has slid delivery of the full Block IV suite to at least 2029, and this is a significant factor in the Air Force’s decision to slow F-35A procurement.”

        https://news.clearancejobs.com/2021/11/08/f-35-upgrades-are-necessary-for-the-u-s-to-maintain-tactical-edge-over-china/

        This report further stated that delays in the delivery of Block IV to 2029 are potentially impacting the US Air Force’s delivery and acquisition plans for the aircraft.

        READ MORE TAB

         https://eurasiantimes.com/block-iv-upgrade-f-35s-could-fall-behind-chinese-stealth-fighters-if-us-delays-modernization-plans/

        • That’s gone even further right then, not a good sign for any of the F35 users then.
          Not sure how that now impacts on both Meteor and S3 integration on our aircraft, it was initially supposed to be 2024!!!!!

          • It’s not a good sign for the UK period.

            Whether you like or loathe the F-35, with such a small number of aircraft to call upon as we can now see very clearly, and as I’ve suggested countless times over the years on here, we need to purchase more Typhoons and upgrade what we currently have available to the best standards possible including MSM/JSM to counter future threats.

            Tempest, Loyal wingman, and Drones are the future while the F-35 was only ever meant to be a stop-gap until the arrival of 6th gen aircraft to keep the west ahead of the pack.

            Sadly it appears they have now caught us up.

          • Some stop gap, when it will be in service for another 40 + years. Shame you have no idea how Chinese aircraft compared to western fast jets to make a sensible comparison. Because they will never release that kind of information.

          • Really? not for long. China is still very much underrated in terms of what it can achieve, just like its ability to produce a hypersonic missile a few years ago.

            Personally, I’d never underestimate a potential adversary!

            “Although Chinese military aviation has come to lead the world in a number of areas, its engine technology still remains behind with the American F119 and F135 and Russian AL-41 all still outperforming any existing Chinese designs.

            The WS-15 program appears intended to leapfrog these older engines and place China on par with if not ahead of the world leaders.”

            https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/j-20-ws15-engine-leader-thrust

            “But some problems are related to a surface coating on the turbine blades that overheats, causing the blades to crack. A defense official first told Bloomberg News earlier this year that the engines require maintenance earlier than planned, taking them out of service sooner and exacerbating the shortage across the services.”

            https://www.military.com/daily-news/2021/07/14/how-many-f-35-fighter-jets-are-down-engine-repair.html

          • Are you on the payroll Nigel? funny that you never talk about the huge number of tech issues and delays and cost overruns with Chinese projects? Just share the same propaganda about F35. Desperate stuff.

          • Even the Russians have never matched the west in engine tech, and they are behind the west in engine tech, and they are well ahead of China. Anyone who says otherwise is frankly bonkers

          • The First Sea Lord says we can expect a total F-35 fleet of 80. If they are all B models, will they all be assigned to the carriers? If so, that is surely a good number?

          • It reminds me a bit of Marmite, you either love or hate it.
            LM certainly aren’t helping with there constant delays with Blk 4 update being late and considerably over budget. Will only push the price back up .

          • Except all the pilots who fly it say they wouldn’t want to go to war In any other aircraft. Another example of the difference between Internet stories and reality. F35 is the only game in town. Over 750 I’m service and rising rapidly. Those are the hard facts. Canada will probably be the next customer.

          • Written by Homer Simpson. Actually, that’s an insult to Homers intelligence. Or a reporter paid a cash sum from Boeing. 👌

        • Nice to see it’s not just us getting screwed. Expect to see UK weapons integration slip even more if the US can’t get its in.

          • Adreed.

            “Wallace told Britain’s Parliamentary defence select committee that he had the budget to buy more than the 48 jets the military has already ordered, but wanted to see progress controlling maintenance costs and fair treatment for integrating Meteor.

            “Its important for me to say to BAE Systems, Lockheed Martin and all the other [ contractors] that ‘It’s in your interest to keep through-life support costs down’ because simply, I don’t want to be held to a massive bill I can’t get out of,” he said.

            “Also it’s important that we continue the planned integration of Meteor on the F-35, I don’t want to be put to the back of the queue for that and it’s in all your interests that if you want me to carry on buying F-35 that we keep a lid on those costs and that we are treated fairly integrating a European made missile [on the jet].

            “We need more than 48 and we will invest in more than 48, but I’m not in the business of giving a blank check to contractors if they don’t play their part in cost controls, support and indeed making sure Britain’s developed capabilities are put on them [ the F-35], ” Wallace told lawmakers.”

            https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2021/06/23/two-reasons-britain-could-slow-its-purchase-of-the-f-35/

      • It’s coming in bits now and we are at end of the line 2028 now for UK weapons integration. We should stop at 48 F35 B for the navy and move on to tempest.

        • I strongly disagree to that myself. There need to be enough F35 available for a war sized air group, and as a sovereign nation that means all UK aircraft if the need demands it.

          With just 48 the potential of the QEC is hamstrung until the drones arrive. And the F35 may also be used away from the carriers on occasion.

          • Block 4 has been tooted as being what’s needed to make the most of the f35. Just hope there are no more time slips. I’m not sure what keeps pushing it back. Is it just too complicated and can be scaled back?
            My memory fails me as to how hard the upgrade is for currently produced aircraft. I know early ones it’s a big upgrade job.
            The thing with the numbers is are the 80 the full fleet of aircraft. Or will it be 80 minus the early ones we dump/don’t upgrade.
            80 as a fleet sounds ok but 80 minus 10+ early versions and development aircraft staying in USA and the crashed and future accidents etc the fleet goes down from 80 fast.
            Still great to have any. Fantastic machine

          • I’ve always assumed the number to be all up, including the 3 orange wired ones with 17.

            I’d bite the hand off for 70 or 80 but accept 60, plus Typhoon and the UCAV. As few as 48 must be avoided at all costs.

          • I think the drones will arrive long before the extra F35’s and with tempest the RAF does not really need land based F35B. Lockheed is increasingly taking the piss and with so many exports orders I don’t think they care enough about UK to prioritise weapons for us and without weapons what’s the point.

        • We have 2 carriers that have the potential to carry 60-70 aircraft each. Why would we not order the correct number of aircraft to at least fill one.

          you have to remember that your never going to have all you aircraft deployed at any one time so of we have 48 F35Bs we will be lucky to sustain an a carrier air wing of 24 aircraft 36 would be a pushing it and an at extremis surge.

          But we could with ambition be able to have 4 frontline squadrons of F35B giving 48 easily deployable aircraft ( 2 squadrons per carrier or one carrier with 48 aircraft) with the potential to surge from the OCU to up the air wings further.

          For that to work and to maximise leverage of our carriers we need a goos 80 airframes at a minimum, remembering this aircraft will be operation for 40-50 years so we will suffer at least 20 losses just from peace time attrition.

          Its not like the 35B is an out dated aircraft with limited life or utility it’s the most advanced and effective strike fighter on the planet.

          personally I think we would be barking not to take all 130ish 35Bs over the next 40 years. We need to be regenerating both our air defences and our expeditionary capability delivered by the RN and this plane does both any other will not.

          All in all we need at least 10 front line fast jet squardons ( 4-5 F35B 5-6 typhoon or replacement) + the 2 OCU.

          tempest and the F35B should be worked up and on side by side as you don’t really want to be limited to just one fast jet option as it puts you at risk ( fleet being grounded, production disruptions etc).

        • Tempest, if it ever comes to fruition, will most likely not fly before 2030, which means any production run is another 6-8 years away. What are we to do if something happens in the meantime?

          We either buy more Typhoons, that will be relegated to airspace defence, or we buy more F35’s that can be used on the Carrers and/or UK defence if the unthinkable occurs.

          On the subject of Tempest, is there anymore news on the US 6th Gen aircraft that was designed and flown in a year? The U.S. Air Force’s future fighter program?

    • Agree John
      Makes sense to order a newer version of Eurofighter typhoon with AESA radar and ideally conformal fuel tanks.
      24 aircraft would be a sensible bridge into the age of Tempest and ensure RAF not left under strength at a time of peer challenges from Russia and China.
      We will need 80 F35Bs in service. Im not comfortable with just 60, although obviously 60 is better than just 48.
      Defence budget needs to go up. We live in dangerous times.

    • With research airframes, the OCU and the RAF we’ll be lucky to have eight to ten available for purely navy use by 2025 which is painfully few.

    • I agree that it would be a good idea for the RAF to replace Tranche 1 Typhoons. Yet I wonder if the RAF should revert a possible new batch to what the Typhoon was designed for a pure out and out air superiority fighter. Possibly some modifications could be included such as varible pitch engine nozzels, puffer nozzels in the wing tips. basically make it the fighter aircraft that it was designed to be until bean counters got hold of it.

      • It already is the fighter it was meant to be. It is an outstanding air superiority fighter,with genuine swing role capability, and all weather day/night precision strike capability. And RAF Typhoons will receive some major upgrades over the next few years.

      • Why the puffer nozzles? Updated EJ200, Airbus aero kit and TVNs, plus radar 2, Pirate 2, the new Praetorian DAS and the new pilot’s helmet. Will have an aircraft better than most can field, including the Rafale. Only the F22 and perhaps the SU57 with the proper engines will be able to compete with it, in the true fighter/interceptor role. A F35 will still be able to kill it from distance though.

        • Hi DaveyB and Robert, I agree that the Typhoon is a good aircraft and with the expected updates will be as good as if not better than most that will compete with them. Yet they had the possibility of being so much more. An example is with the jet engine nozzles. When the Typhoon was originally conceived these nozzles were to be ajustable to aid in maneuverbility. This was dropped due to the collapse of the Warsaw Pact and the cost to Germany of reunification, so the project was reined in.

          Why puffer nozzels in the wing tips, speed of reaction, surfaces on the wings or tail takes time to respond, puffer nozzels could or should react quicker. It could also be a useful test bed as it might mean once perfected moving surfaces on the wings or tail could be disposed of thereby the potential to reduce weight as hydraulic systems would not be needed.

          So the Typhoon with thrust vectoring and puffer nozzles (MBDA call it Pif Paf) the Typhoon would have supermaneuverbility and as such would be able to carry out maneuvers that would not be possible purly by aerodynamic surfaces. The other advantage of thrust vectoring plus puffer nozzles is again maneuverbility, at certain speeds or angle of attack control surfaces do not respond to there maximum effectiveness. This means that the aircraft can either stall or be sluggish. Thrust vectoring with puffer nozzles overcome this issue.

          So again the Typhoon is a dammed good aircraft but it could have been so much more and possibly a new batch as a pure fighter could incoporate some of these features as a test bed for the new Tempest.

      • Very interesting, and from the horse’s mouth rather than the tail so to speak!

        Later he got well acquainted with flying the F-22 while serving as the Division Commander in the Test and Evaluation Squadron.

        “Berke also had the privilege of being the first operational pilot ever to fly and be qualified in the F-35B, serving as the Commanding Officer of the Marine Corps’ first F-35 squadron from 2012-2014.

        “The F-35 cannot match the F-22 as an air superiority fighter—it was never designed as such. The US Air Force’s initial plan was for the F-22 to be its high-end air superiority fighter while the F-35 was developed essentially as an air-to-ground strike aircraft capable enough to protect itself.”

    • Id also go so far as stating the RAF should retain tranche 1 aircraft for QRA and Falklands duties. Maybe send a few to do NATO policing duties in Eastern Europe.
      You dont see Russia scrapping aircraft with flying hours left on their airframes.
      Mass has a quality of its own. We dont just need small numbers of exquisite equipment.

  3. Those ferry flights for the RAF are just a little hop, skip and jump across the Atlantic pond from the US to UK.

    The latest ferry flight late last year for the RAAF (brought the total to 44), was a bloody big hop, skip and jump across the Pacific.

    Three F-35A, two KC-30A tankers and a C-17A, travelled 12,700km from Arizona, to Hawaii, then onto RAAF Base Williamstown north of Newcastle.

    Cheers,

  4. There is already 24 F35-B that have been delivered to RAF. With 3 (001,002,004) remaining in the US, that could be 21 or 24 delivered to UK. Subtract 1 for the lost one (018) you get 20 or 23. None of these are 22, the number required to add 3 to to get 25??. These planes should follow on from those delivered in November (022,023,024) and should be 025, 026 & 027

    • 28 have been delivered to the RAF. 1 has been lost.
      You’re missing off the 3 ITF test aircraft based at Edwards AFB in 17 TES.
      As of Wednesday we’ll have 24 in the UK at Marham.

      • ZM135 is 001, the first ITF aircraft in the US. The ones coming over are ZM159-161, which is 27. What is the 28th aircraft?

        • None will go to the FAA. All are from the RAF budget, but shared with Navy. 809 NAS will be the next squadron to stand up, but given the loss of an F-35 and the re-scheduling of deliveries as a result of covid its unlikely they’ll be ‘operational’ by 2026.

          • I find it staggering that the lead for naval aviation is therefore the RAF. They get their fingers into all the pies.

            Years ago they wanted to operate Apache despite the AAC experience of operating armed anti-tank helos over 2 generations – with Scout SS11 and then Lynx/TOW.
            Their claim that you had to be a light blue officer with a degree to fly an Apache was rebuffed by the AAC who had decades of experience of Cpls, Sgts and Warrant Officers successfully flying armed helicopters.

          • Thanks. I wonder why the FAA did not get the chance to lead on the F-35B project – this is naval aviation after all. Shows the lobby power of certain senior RAF officers, I guess.

  5. Any benefit in buying some A’s as well to be based in the UK? Appreciate numbers might be too low and will probably result in increased cost, and increased cost to support different variants but you would think that ability to go further and carry more armaments would be useful on many occasions.

    • Buying A variants means two small fleets and the carriers potential limited. A’s should only be bought once a decent number of B’s are available, ideally 70 to 80.
      Even then, A a nice to have rather than a necessity with money tight and funding for Tempest.

      • Id go for the C variant if we have a 2 types subdivision. Longer range. Heavier payload and covers the potential contingency of a future CATs and Traps QE carriers conversion.
        The A variant (or better C variant) should only be considered if defence budget increased and armed forces getting substantially bigger.
        Instead of an A variant Id like the latest version of typhoon as a bridge to Tempest.
        Lets get the F35B numbers upto 80 first then see where we are.

        • QE carriers were to be FFNW cats and traps but that idea got binned. It would cost a fortune to fit cats and traps now – and take a carrier out of service for a year or two.

      • I think an advanced future block 5/6 A variant will be the obvious choice if Tempest gets cancelled.

        You can guarantee Uncle Sam will offer just such an aircraft to the RAF (possibly with UK assembly / larger UK parts content), in an attempt to get us to abandon Tempest.

        I would imagine the US Defence lobby is viewing Team Tempest with an increasing sense of unease as the programme starts to gather tangible momentum and brings in big players like Japan (systems and propulsion technology).

        It brings with it the real possibility they might start to loose control of Japan, as a major US defence technology importer and see the creation of a serous independent and truly international competitor for the US Defence industrial base.

        • As a side note to this, the Franco German Spanish fighter is running into serous troubled waters due to the usual euro land in-fighting.

          If France is forced to go it alone (and you can believe Uncle Sam will make every effort to drive the wedge in there with an F35 offering to Germany and Spain), France will have to lower its goals and expectations to keep it within budget.

          I would expect an evolved stealthy Rafale variant, a sort of Gen 4.9 offering…..

          • Hi John. l wonder if this may present an opportunity for Germany/Spain to re-consider their position. Perhaps re evaluate Tempest participation as an alternative?

            I recall (many years ago) France was an original partner in the then Eurofighter project , however their demand were so unrealistic ,they departed to do their own thing with Rafael .
            Might this behaviour re-emerge? Be interesting to watch.

          • Evening Klonkie, I can’t see German Tempest participation ever happening, for so many reasons.

            The UK being the primary Tempest partner and a non EU member would render German participation impossible politically.

            If the simmering tension between Germany and France breaks down into unrecognisable differences, the Germans will probably go F35, possibly try and get their own F35G version, with some German content, assembly perhaps??

            The French might have to lower their expectations and go with a next generation Rafael, airframe alterations, jamming in as much new technology as possible and uprated and improved M88’s…

            I honestly think it would be their only option as a national project and to be fair, it would probably be a very good machine, the French don’t build rubbish!

            With Spain being the minor player and suddenly finding itself out in the wilderness, they will probably also play it safe and go F35.

            It’s certainly an interesting time…

        • Oh, yeah, LM, Boeing and Northrop are just quaking in their boots at the thought of a Tempest program managed by two nations that can’t finance their existing forces adequately. Tempest is not even on the drawing board and the US has already flown a prototype sixth generation fighter. Just quaking in their boots.

          • That is not what John was referring to. He was referring to the widely believed historical practice of the US lobby trying its best to scupper other nations programmes for its own benefit so nations buy US gear.

            The US companies are not quaking in their boots. Your black budget dwarfs other nations entire defence budgets. But they will still follow their and US interests above all, to the detriment of other nations, which is not always in OUR interests.

            And before I start sounding too much like I am against the US, I’m not, I believe in the SR and what it gives the UK. I’m also aware of one of the things the relationship gives the US which they needed, bases, a legacy of empire which the US could use post war. The relationship is not one of charity on the US behalf.

          • Well said Daniele, I’m afraid Mr Morgans bluster completely misses the point and by some considerable margin, saves me the time mate👍

            The thing that really scares the US Defence sector (military aviation in-particular) is the method of manufacture that BAE Systems is working on.

            It should bring the cost way down on Gen6.

            While Mr Morgan whoops and waves the stars and stripes about, he might want to stop and consider the long troubled history of the F35, or the F22, both still facing many expensive issues, despite being decades into development.

            The production techniques being pioneered on Tempest (and the great meeting of minds that is Britain and Japan in-particular) are a great leveller of the playing field.

            If he thinks companies like LM, Boeing and Northrop aren’t very seriously paying close attention to project Tempest, then he has no real grasp of how this technology could seriously alter the whole military market place.

            While I am all for the UK buying top quality equipment from the US, especially in situations where domestic requirements are now so few, that re-inventing the wheel would be an expensive folly ..cough ..Wildcat … Ajax … Chally3 … cough.

            The F35 is ‘slowly’ coming right, but it stands as an object lesson on how not to build a complex military aircraft….

            AH64E, C17, C130J, all excellent US platforms, I hope we add UH60 to list before too long, however, the UK can and should compete with the world in the complex Warship and Military Aircraft and associated systems arena.

          • -_- the British don’t need Black Hawk it is old and the USA is developing the replacement, why do we need Black Hawk! its a relic of the Cold War, the AW149 is a more modern design

          • How much will AW149 be?
            How much will BH be? Built in Poland.
            How many of each can we get for the budget of FMH program?
            I read the requirement is for 44 to replace Puma, Bells, and Dauphins in a total of 5 squadrons. Can AW149 or the BH provide that number within budget?
            Sometimes an effective OTS solution that the army probably wanted years ago will suffice.
            Do we prioritise jobs at Yeovil or what the military need, in bulk, at an effective price.

          • But you always have to remember the whole cost and benefit of a solution which our government never does. If you buy a product made in the U.K. like the AW149 you get a massive amount of the money back in tax base. So actually a U.K. built AW149 could come in at 25%-30% more than a black hawk and it would still be better value for the British tax payer. The issue is that our government does not include that as a rebate back into the defence budget ( which is short sighted rubbish ). In my view if the MOD buys a British product that creates tax revenue it should be invested back into the defence budge, so the U.K. armed forces get the benefit of buying British and British industrial power ( which is needed in Geopolitics) is increased…win..win.

            It’s the same with the NHS, we spend about 50% of our budget ( 56million) on staff pay, 40-50 % of that immediately gets recycled back into the Tax base so the government almost immediately gets back about 25-30 million for its 120 million nhs spend).

          • Of course. You’re correct, and you say it better than I. But they never do, Mod don’t get that money. So the MoD and armed forces get relegated, again, and people moan as the numbers go down.

            And we’re looking at this as a defence centric viewpoint rather than a UKPLC one. When the military require 44 and we end up with 20 ( as an example ) and they have to be in 3 places at once, why do we moan!

            A balance needs to be struck, and in my view sometimes an OTS proven design is acceptable if we still produce plenty if other kit ourselves.

            Anyway, we all know AW will win! The MPs who know sod all about defence will do the business.

          • Being an eternal optimist I one day hope that politicians will relearn the art of nation building and relink all the parts of the millitary industrial machine together, including financial streams. It’s one of the reasons the US has been so successful in the creation of a massive military that could be sustained without destruction of its financial position, instead it advanced it. The US are the masters of the millitary industrial complex as a method of hegemony and they are the masters at that, we should learn from them,

          • Easy, cost! It will be significantly cheaper than anything Leonardo or Airbus can offer. As the purchase will be added to a US Army program. As per Chinook and Apache. It will have a huge support and spares package. The UK can dip into when operating with the US.

            The age of the design is not a factor. The latest UH60M is very different from the original A variant. Plus it might also include the MH60 Pavehawk, which the SF community would like, as that would also be better for integrating with the US’s 160th SOAR.

          • Did John suggest buying Black Hawk? I agree that would be silly – I agree it is old (it first flew nearly 50 years ago) – and can only carry 11 passengers whereas Puma can carry 16.

          • Well it’s not that clearly defined is it and I have to say as questionable as the use of the term ‘drawing board’ these days. Of course concepts of Tempest are in Cad it’s simply how far along they have got and no doubt previous work carried out on previous programs like Teranis, Replica et al are contributing. As for the US 6th Gen prototype it’s pr started with Trump mouthing off at a time the US looked like it was falling behind in hypersonics and new Russian/Chinese jets coming along, about it being originated and flown in 2 years or so (clearly using Musk time) clearly to try to promote the idea of US ‘superiority’ being maintained.

            Problem is he is even less a reliable a promoter of reality than Boris and has left those who follow or are part of the 6th Gen program itself having to deliver on those words for the US (and them) not to be humiliated now internally/externally to keep the program and military positively imaged. Trouble is, apart from words we know little about it, nothing visual has been shown so we have no idea of what constitutes this ‘prototype’ or how representative it might even be of a real project. Everything else is pure speculation and early on many even claimed it was an existing airframe with advanced features added. So let’s not take all the hype as fact here and remember much/all of the computerised twin that has been trumpeted as making that original timeframe somehow feasible originated in Sweden and oh yes is very much available to Bae too. So yes realistically we won’t produce anything as quick as the US cash and resources won’t allow it but as a companies here and partner countries I really have rather more faith presently than the likes of LM and Boeing in the US who, thanks to an easy life and influence have developed an appalling reputation even worse than their ability to successfully actually produce products. So let’s see.

        • As much as I was concerned about Tempest even a year ago these agreements with Japan give me great confidence it will go ahead. For a start the engine and structural design would go and the sensor agreement would only have a future if it could be incorporated on something else, that’s not going to be F35. So not only would it pretty much destroy any cooperative efforts with Japan even outside of defence but damage links on almost any level vital to ‘Global Britain. Despite the doubts I had it seems Japan is determined to develop it’s only skills in this sector, I think the Trump experience has shaken them, they not only see cooperation there potentially being more one sided and exploitative in the future while the whole stability of the US itself is still in question with all the doubts that brings in military supply and even the long relied upon military umbrella that has been integral to their thinking in a developing world that is exceptionally dangerous to them with both China and Russia as threats let alone a combined one. Yes they will still be tied to the US but they clearly want independence too into this rocky future.

          Equally if Tempest is cancelled where does that leave Bae, why would it stay committed to Britain and what would that do to our high end design and engineering skills? After Brexit it leaves us in precisely the situation that not only destroys the pro argument but leaves us in the very scenarios Japan is trying to escape.

          So European cooperation unlikely and at best a humiliating and minor role we would as F35 doesn’t replace Typhoon anyway, be forced to buy whatever expensive US 6th Gen effort gets off the ground with whatever Tempest Origin content we can force into our version which is likely to save little and lose skills, jobs, confidence and companies while doing what we have clearly decided not to if Apache and other programs are to go by to save cost. So no unless a leftest Labour Govt gets in I can’t see that disastrous self flagellation of a decision on Tempest is at all likely.

          • If Tempest is cancelled, with the MoD ordering the F-35A instead, we must insist that final assembly and flight testing should be at Warton. Otherwise, certain British skills could be permanently lost, with BAE merely manufacturing components for future US designs.

          • I fully agree as usual mate! I would say that for all reasons you so eloquently make in you post, Tempest stands a better than average chance of making it to the finish line.

            Japan dovetailing in key technology areas for their Gen6 aircraft make Tempest a far more robust and politically survivable platform.

            Let us remember the simple rules facing a new cutting edge military programme….

            Lift, Thrust, Drag and Politics (my favourite quoted reflection on the TSR2 programme)….

            As the late great Barry Cryer once joked, “Politicians are like babies nappies, they need changing regularly and for the same reasons”

            They have a never ending capability to f**k things up!

            I can certainly see an all singing, all dancing bespoke British block 5/6 F35A being offered to the UK, with increased UK content and perhaps UK assembly as a LM counter pitch…

    • Zero point to them.

      • We can’t refuel them, they’re boom only. So their real range would be limited to less than F-35B.
      • Hugely increased sustainment costs.
      • Can’t be used on the Carriers
      • Politically unacceptable, would impact Tempest buy.
      • And UK cleared weapons would not be able to make any difference to the overall weapons load (doesn’t make a difference if you have a larger bomb bay if you can only hang a 500lb Paveway IV in it anyway).

    • Hi Stuart,

      This has been discussed many times on here with some pretty experienced people all pointing out that the differences between the A and B variants are considerable and not just limited to the engines. As such it is almost equivalent to introducing a new type into the inventory which means new training manuals (aircrew and maintenance), new safety cases and that is before you get to the spares supply chain. All of which i sexpensive fo rjust a few aircraft.

      As you say the A variant can go further with more, but the UK is putting its money into the Tempest programme which continues to gather pace and the RAF continues to add capabilities into the Typhoon. Numbers of airframes and people is the big issue at the moment with the Typhoon fleet soon to reduce to just 107…

      If we wanted to operate the F35B in a European / NATO context there are plenty of European countries buying into the F35 programme so we could base in Europe if needed (although we’d need to take our own spares 🙂 ), but it is clear that the focus will be carrier strike it seems which is sensible given our geographic situation and naval tradition.

      Cheers CR

      • I agree, in any conflict in Europe the UK would be primarily intent on defending the waters in and around the UK and up to Norway and the western approaches. It will be vital in enabling proper and continuing support from across the pond. The Russians would, like those before them try to strangle these islands and European coast and waters. That would have to be prevented and in the early days we would very possibly be holding the line as others on mainline Europe would be expected to further West.

      • Which is more likely – deployment of a CSG into a real shooting war – or air/land combat in a European/NATO context?

        • Hi Graham,

          A shooting war in the European NATO context would inevitably involve a significant naval threat as well as land operations. As such a RN carrier CSG would likely very busy in the Eastern Atlantic, North Sea and Arctic.

          Two key roles would fall on European Navies and the RN in particularly. The first would be to secure the Western Approaches to enable reinforcement from North America. The second key role would be the insertion of the Royal Marines / Dutch Marines into North Norway.

          In both roles naval aviation would be an important capability given Russian surface fleet and land based long and medium range strike aircraft.

          So to answer your question I would think that the UK F-35B would be more the busy looking after NATO’s maritime flank.

          Cheers CR

          • Thanks CR. Out of interest did we have carriers operating in those areas in WW2?
            Do you not see a need for naval assets in the Med – NATO’s southern flank?

          • Hi Graham,

            You’re welcome.

            Initially during ’39 ’40 we operated fleet carriers in the escort role but they proved vulnerable to raiders and submarines. HMS Glorious was sunk in the North Sea by Scharnhorst and Gneisenau having covered the vacuation of British troops from Norway, for example.

            As such the RN withdrew fleet carriers from escort duties which left the convoys with no effective air cover until the US was able to ramp up its construction of escort carriers and the Liberator bomber became available in the MPA role. By the end of the war the UK was operating dozens of these escort carriers which were based on merchant standards.

            The need for a CSG in today’s role is slightly different in that it would be looking to engage enemy surface vessels and cover troop deployments from stand off ranges. Also, the modern carrier has an effective airbourne ASW capability in the Merlin helictopter, apparently called the ‘flying frigate’ by some. During WW2 the only way an aircraft could detect a submarine was when it was on the surface, which to be fair was most of the time.

            Going forward it is possible that autonomous vehicles (AV), both airborne and waterborne, might considerably enhance the escort force’s capabilities. The T26, T31 and T32 frigates will all have the ability carry AV’s of one sort or another.

            Cheers CR

          • Sorry forgot to answer the Med question…

            There are already significant NATO assets in the Med. The French fleet is split between the Atlantic and the Med as you would expect, but there is also the Italian Navy which is very capable with small carriers as well. There is also the US 6th Fleet with its HQ in Naples. It usually has a CSG as its core capability. Spain, Greece and Turkey also contribute to NATO’s southern flank.

            Having said all of that it should be remembered that all of NATO’s navies have shrunk quite significantly over the last 30 years. Even the US Navy ‘only’ has about 90 escorts spread right across the globe (not forgetting that you can count on about 1/3 being in refit at any onetime).

            The problem for the Russians trying to operate in the Med is that their access is via the Bosphorus Strait which is dominated by Turkey. They do have bases in Syria, but I suspect that any prepositioned naval force they would have a very difficult time of it.

            Given the small size of the RN I think it likely that it would be concentrated in the Eastern Atlantic / North Sea, assuming that there is some warning of an attack. In the unlikely event of the Russian’s attacking NATO from a standarding start i.e. their forces moving from the peacetime bases strait into action with no build up or preparatory training, then there is the theoretical chance that we could be caught with our CSG in the Far East, for example. As I say that is very unlikely as demonstrated by NATO watching the Russian build up around the Ukraine.

            We shouldn’t forget the UK bases in Cyprus either as these would likely host a small number of Typhoons in the event of war and would be very important sources of intelligence…

            This is pretty much just my take on thinkgs but I hope it helps.

            Cheers CR

          • Thanks for this CR and your earlier related answer. I have some doubts about the quality of US intelligence within NATO’s intelligence piece – but I agree with your assessment.
            I have always thought that our naval aviation is too light on platform count – I think we need a 3rd QE carrier and replacement of HMS Ocean.

    • The truth is an 35A cannot go further than an 35B, simply because the F35A is shackled to 10,000 feet of appropriate concrete and the F35Bs base can float around 600 miles a day in almost any direction. So a U.K. F35B squadron can hold any country on the planet at risk where as the 35A can only travel 1000km from a hard to find 10,000 feet of runway without air to refuelling and this both impacts on countries an F35A could put and risk and its sortie rate ( look at the sortie rates and difficulties the RAF had in Libya).

      If you happen to have two state of the art, designed for F35B, 6 billion pound 70,000 ton carriers, you would be a bit out of your mind to then go and buy a fast jet that can’t fly off them. It like buying a top of the range caravan and then buying a mini to try and tow it.

    • Not unless the defence budget were to increase to the point where we could purchase 200 F35s total; half As and half Bs.

      That’ll never happen.

      With such a small number, probably 80 or so, the only rational thing is to keep them all B models to maximise our carrier capabilities. If they’re all Bs then every single one of them can operate from our carriers. This allows us to surge if we need to.

      80 Bs could get us:

      – 48 frontline (4 squadrons)
      – 12 OCU
      – 3 Test planes
      -17 spares

      All apart from the 3 test planes can operate from the carriers (the test ones can’t as they are in the US).

      If we do a split buy this cuts the number of carrier-capable aircraft in half.

  6. Have these 3 new aircraft been allocated too either the FAA or RAF ? Just enquiring as a sovereign power we should be able too field a full carrier air group rather than top up with USMC air frames ?

    • The Lightning force is a joint organisation, but I believe the jets themselves are owned by the RAF.
      We will field a carrier air group when enough F35 have been delivered. The slow delivery rate has been explained many times on here and elsewhere.

      • Cheers for that Daniele it was just that I’d like too see a Carrier group deploy that’s fully British that was all. But thanks anyway

        • Well you will Tommo. But from zero to air group, carrier capability will take time.

          If the carrier had sat in port until the aircraft are ready some would be complaining even more than now.

          As it is, the RN could demonstrate their ability to deploy a carrier group, incomplete of course, at range, over long duration. The USMC were not necessary but welcome, demonstrating interoperability between allies and giving the crew a more realistic number of AC to work with rather than just 8 british ones.

          Despite their wildest dreams, the detractors of the carriers thinking just 8 Brit jets is it are ignoring reality.

          These things are not instant.

          • I KNOW Daniele, twas a pity that we retired the Harrier before it’s time, I’m not a detractor of the QE class but new toys need new boxes But they could have been a stop gap until The FAA has a full complement of F35s bit late now though

          • Harrier, what an icon! Glad you know. 😎

            At the time the RAF had 1 squadron of Harrier GR9s left, 7 of Tornado GR4, 2 of Tornado F3, and 2 of Typhoon.

            ( Despite the tory bashers, the Harrier force and the Sea Harriers were disbanded by previous governments and RAF Cottesemore announced would close. It didn’t, it became the army’s Kendrew barracks, but I digress )

            What I’m driving at is that it was an “easy” cut to make for them, with but a single squadron remaining, with a larger pool of ac in reserve much like now with Hawk T1.

            So unless they reformed 3 and 4 Squadrons RAF to operate the Harriers we would still only have 1 squadron when the QEC arrived.

            I myself really don’t see the point. It would make the carriers “look better” as they’d have more ac on deck. But would that aid or hinder the introduction and operation of the F35?

            No idea, but I suspect the latter.

          • Hi Di. Slightly of topic , but in a few weeks we’ll be on the 40th anniversary of the Falklands. A brilliant performance by the Sea Harrier Force. Limited resources, no AWCAS.

            Id see a looming gap with the Typhoon Tranche 1 retirement I’m concerned we’ll see another squadron cut – down to 6

          • Evening K.

            Would not surprise would it.

            809 will be standing up so 8 squadrons will still be the ORBAT. 6 Typhoon and 2 F35.
            Pity one of the Typhoon squadrons is joint with Qatar.

            As well as Typhoon T1 we lost the 3 Tornado squadrons too a few years back. What was that, 50 odd jets? They kept the same number of squadrons there by expanding from 5 to 7 the Typhoon squadron numbers, with the same number of aircraft!

            Cut to beyond the bone years ago even before these reductions.

            I was 10 at the time of Corporate but still remember it.

          • I was 12. A few months after the conclusion of hostilities, the school I was in hosted a talk by the then 2IC of 2 para (I think) Maj. Chris Keeble about his experience in the Falklands. It was fascinating, he had many slides and pictures that were unique. He was very impressive and made a big impression on many listening. I’m sure he upped recruitment that day.

          • He deserved more credit and need not have been replaced after the Battle of Goose Green by a new half-Colonel parachuted into the briny. Keeble’s leadership was superb.

          • I Googled h.m.s queen Elizabeth without a ramp and ther are a lot of artists impression of it some are very good and as a regular looking carrier I think it looks far better than with the ramp. It would free more deck space and maybe increase the aircraft capacity. Food for thought if nothing else

        • Don’t quote me on this but I believe the aircraft are own by the MOD not the raf or navy. And don’t ask me how that works with the services that use them. The lightening force hq does sit within the raf. I think

          • With POW out of service for a while QE having too take up the slack ,it won’t be long before the QE will have to repaint the flightdeck if a full compliment of F35s were too be embarked Andy

        • 617 is manned by both the RAF and FAA. 809 NAS will be the same. What if pilots swap between aircraft!?

          Ideally the F35s would be all FAA piloted and RN owned, and the RAF would have had its Tornado replacement ( The FOAS was cancelled, like so much else )

          Going back in the timeline to get to the current set up-

          Typhoon was originally meant to replace the Jaguar and last of the Phantoms. Tornado F3 ended up replaced too.
          Tornado was to be replaced by FOAS.
          Harrier / Sea Harrier was to be replaced by the JSF – became F35B.
          No idea what was to replace the Bucc.

          With all the cuts, Typhoon has replaced the lot and the small F35 force replaces Harrier. 23 squadrons to 8!

          1 Group, 2 Group and 11 Group merged, with all fast jets into 1 Group.

          The cuts left nothing for dedicated CAS/Strike role for the RAF. I know the Typhoon is now multi role and has taken the role, but that is because it had to! There was no replacement for Tornado. If Russia is getting more aggressive those Typhoons should ideally be in a reformed 11 Group doing the defensive side.

          I think this is why the 35s are RAF owned? Would be interesting to get a definitive answer.

          • Thanks Daniele,
            As an ex-army man and one who served in Helmand (in 2008/9), I was always keen to see our guys get the best CAS from the RAF (not that I was in the FOBs and PBs with them). We were very well served by Harrier in that regard.

            Then it was replaced in-theatre by Tornado to the army’s general surprise as the maintenence costs were very much higher and it was not as optimised for CAS.

            Matters became much clearer at the next Defence review when it was stated that the RAF was being forced by political masters to go down from 3 to 2 fast jet types; ie Typhoon plus either Harrier or Tornado. ‘Everyone’ had forgotten what a good job Harrier had done in Afghan years some before and how cheap it was to run. So Harrier got the chop from the RAF. RAF politics at work.

            Sea Harriers obviously a somewhat different story and linked to demise of the Invincible class carriers purely to save money, and the taking of that huge risk in having a 10-year hiatus in having a carriers and associated jets capability.

    • We only had some USMC F-35Bs on CSG21, because Boeing had not built our own full national quota of aircraft. That will not be the situation ‘for ever and a day’.

      • Fingers crossed a FAA without yanks or Crabfats emblazoned painting on the tail of ranged Aircraft parked on the Flightdeck At Alpha

  7. 80 is certainly better than 48 but I wouldn’t go as far as saying 80 aircraft is ‘welcome news’, considering even the original 138 is on the low side. We need strength in depth because no other jet can use the carriers. We need enough to deploy the carriers at surge levels even if half the aircraft were lost to combat.

    • Now Andrew, you should know that it is rude to plan for the worst. You’ll upset the grown ups sitting in the Westminister bubble, you know you shouldn’t talk about how nasty things can get in the real world, it’s far too shocking for such gentile ears especially when they think they are doing such a good job..!🙄

      Seriously, though – yup couldn’t agree more.

      What really gets me is that so many think that the next war will be over really quickly. OK if it goes nuclear it will be, but I think that there is a real chance that it could drag on for the long term.

      Even the Ukraine in the 21st century is creating a network of local defence forces that doesn’t sound like they intend to give up even if their regulars lose the initial toe to toe engagements. Finland in 1940 and dare I say it Afghanistan twice in the last 40 years… wars have a habit of dragging on and have a habit of surprising you.

      So if you want to be in at the finish you have to plan for the hard slog.

      Cheers CR

  8. You have to wonder if the last 20 or so will simply be replacements for lost airframes to accidents and the like, over the service life of the aircraft. So i doubt the actual fleet will ever be much larger than 60 deployable, combat ready aircraft.

    • You make a good point. Its the same issue across entirety of UK defences. Exquisite kit but zero attritional reserve. Once we take losses our combat endurance will drop really quickly. This worries me and keeps me awake and night. Pity the politicians cant see that, be made to understand or just dont care.

      • Does it really keep you up at night? We aren’t exactly at war, or even close to it. The whole Russia/Ukraine thing is just Putin’s game, largely for a domestic audience but also so he can play the big man on the world stage.

        Agree though, we should have greater mass. I keep wondering why we don’t order more Typhoons. Tranche 4 with all the trimmings. It would keep Warton going, increase mass, and plug the gap before Tempest arrives in numbers (hopefully).

        • Thank you Rob. The US has been strongly suggesting that invasion of Ukraine is imminent for at least the last week or so.
          It isn’t. Putin is playing – and winning. He has panicked the world’s only superpower, split NATO members into different camps, made a fool of Macron, made the Ukrainians think seriously about joining NATO, bolstered his strong man image (as you say) and his man, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, enjoyed his public spat with our Foreign Secretary. He may win a few more political points then send the troops home and claim to be the peacemaker.
          US intelligence is poor – good, actionable int requires assessment of political will and likely action as well as the capability of the tanks parked on the lawn.

          • The quality of high level decision making in the West has been abysmal. Politicians clamouring to be seen as important, just to be embarrassed. I have no sympathy for Macron or Truss, they went to Russia with nothing new, only a lecture and got what they deserved.

            The only way to play this is to tell it how it is and expose the Russian playbook each step of the way. Instead we get a stream of statements from officials highlighting an imminent threat, giving Putin what he desires, attention and a stage to bolster his power base.

            They should be the ones made to look like fools. Make an ongoing joke about their so called truths, control over the media, and bare faced lies. How Lavrov can keep a straight face when he lies I have no idea, he’s become a bit of a joke but because they haven’t been held to account they just carry on.

  9. If Russia kicks off with Ukraine we might need these sooner. What’s the delay? Money? Maybe we can get the Turkish F35s sitting around in US. doing nothing…or perhaps that is a political nightmare? Probably. We need to keep the Turks on side.

    • If we ask the Turks nicely, maybe we can fly them from the Anadolu, given that we aren’t allowed to get our carriers in the Black Sea. I think that would appeal to Erdogan.

  10. Slow steady progress. Wondered if we should get ours fully amphibious in case of accidents🙂. But then again all aircraft have occasional accidents. I’d love to see 4 operational squadrons of 20. That’d allow 1 each for the carriers plus a couple for the RAF.

  12. For many years there have been detractors of F-35B. Can most of the problems stated by detractors be regarded as new type teething trouble which is largely put to bed – or are there any remaining capability, reliability or maintainability issues?

  14. If we are only getting 80 jets (really hoping this does not include development aircraft and attrition losses), we really need to hold onto the Typhoons, ideally replacing the Tranche 1’s with new aircraft, not just as a ‘stop gap to tempest’ but to increase our force size and work alongside Tempest and the F-35B.

    Not all conflicts need state of the art, day 1 stealth systems, the Typhoon has proven it’s multi role abilities and can be used for day 2,3,4 etc. With another Afghanistan or Iraq, would we really need CAS from stealth jets ?
    It would give the armed forces more flexibility, keep Warton ticking over and pump money back into the economy. You don’t see the US scrapping mature systems with life left in the airframe, yet we always scrap ours.

    I can see the Typhoon force reducing further to pay for the AESA upgrades, then after 5-10 years, we scrap the lot to stop-gap and invest into Tempest !!
    Yes, new aircraft will mean further investment and maybe an increase in % GDP, but that can be justified with Russia starting to flex again.

    Gapping AEWC, reducing the E-7 buy and Typhoon fleet, scrapping C-130, reducing Army numbers etc. all send signals that we are not going to do anything to support another country. Cuts have to stop.

    • The US have hundreds of F16’s and F15’s sat in the desert with plenty of airframe life left. We are not the only ones. Germany & Italy are also retiring T1’s. The French have also retired early Rafales.

  15. My word. Literally a few dozen F35s I just a few years from now.
    Why do I feel so very underwhelmed when the one’s we have now could be lost within days if the Ukraine goes hot.

  16. The usually reliable F-35 database https://www.f-16.net/aircraft-database/view_airframes_bysearch/key/BK/actype/F-35 lists 27 UK F-35B’s as being delivered, including the three on 15 Feb. Obviously one of these 27 is a write-off, leaving 26. Three early aircraft are wired for testing, and will never leave the USA, leaving 23. But that’s theoretical, it’s hard to imagine the aircraft delivered in 2016 (LRIP-8?) or earlier ever being brought up to a front-line operational standard (currently software Block 3F for the UK?) – just too costly, so that leaves 17 a/c. And a lot of those will probably never be h/w refreshed and s/w upgraded to the new Block 4 standard.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here