In a Commons exchange following the UK’s announcement that it will join NATO’s Dual-Capable Aircraft (DCA) nuclear mission with a fleet of F-35A fighters, former Armed Forces Minister and current Shadow Defence Secretary James Cartlidge pressed ministers on unanswered questions about the capability and readiness of the planned fleet.
While Cartlidge welcomed the decision “in principle,” he questioned the details: “What is the anticipated in-service date for the F-35As? Will they be in service or merely delivered? Will the government still order the remaining F-35Bs as planned? And how will they be refuelled, given current operational sovereignty issues?”
He also raised the possibility of alternative air-delivered options that might draw more heavily on the UK’s industrial base, suggesting “Storm Shadow Typhoon” as one candidate. He warned that the move highlighted broader shortfalls in defence planning: “Doesn’t this show why we need a robust plan to get to 3% on defence in this Parliament, rather than Labour’s smoke and mirrors?”
Responding, Defence Minister Maria Eagle said that the government was “hopeful that the aircraft will start delivering before the end of the decade,” and confirmed that the UK would still proceed with the next batch of 15 F-35Bs, alongside the 12 new F-35As.
However, Eagle’s response to the question of air-to-air refuelling raised eyebrows. Since the RAF’s Voyager fleet lacks the boom-type system required by the F-35A, the aircraft cannot currently be refuelled by UK tankers. “This is a NATO mission,” Eagle told the House. “NATO, of course, will be able to do the air-to-air refuelling.”
According to the RAF, the primary function of the F-35As, at least in the near term, will not be as frontline nuclear delivery assets but as training platforms. “Day-to-day, the F-35As will be used in a training role on 207 Squadron, the Operational Conversion Unit (OCU),” the RAF has said. Because the F-35A carries more fuel than the STOVL B variant, it offers extended airborne time during training sorties. It also requires less maintenance, increasing availability for pilot instruction. “These factors combined will improve pilot training and reduce the amount of time for pilots to reach the front-line squadrons.”
While that training rationale may provide operational value, the purchase of nuclear-capable aircraft that cannot be refuelled by sovereign means, and whose initial role is not strike-related, raises persistent questions about how fully the UK intends to exercise independent control of an air-delivered deterrent.
Ministers have emphasised alliance integration and interoperability as a strength, but as Cartlidge’s questions underline, critics are likely to continue probing whether capability gaps are being quietly absorbed into multinational assumptions.
In the stated intended role, that of delivering an American nuclear bomb, which already requires American cooperation, it won’t matter as the US can refuel. The reality is they won’t ever be used in this role. The RAF will want to use these as the thin end of the wedge, to get multiple squadrons of F-35A. So this could be a real issue if they are successful.
If the UK insists on an upgrade/variant to get probe and drogue, it will increase risk and cost. The RAF will be lobbying for all sorts of extras to go along with these planes, one of which will be new or upgraded tankers. I think they’ve a lot of politicking still to do.
I’m sure the RAF will welcome the F35A as an expandable platform, which brings with it some significant long-term savings over the more complex ‘B.’ Going forward, the ‘A’ variant will probably amount to more additional orders over the ‘B’ as it allows the F35 fleet to grow beyond an all ‘B’ fleet, which can only be good for the RAF.
The F35 CF which was an A version for Canada has the probe and drogue refulling system.
No, it does not. Canada dropped the requirement for a probe.
You are absolutely right about that – RAF will be trying to kill more BRAVO purchases once they have the first dozen frames.
BRAVO needs to be moved to a different managemnet and ownership strcutre so that RAF can’t keep trying to sideline it.
Essentially the problem for RAF was that QECs were ordered and it was inevitable that they would have planes. That was a political decision. So RAF had either to play along with BRAVO or see BRAVO and its budgets handed to RN.
RAF didn’t really want F35B at that stage and just wanted loads more Typhoons but told itself that BRAVO would be good as a replacement Harrier GR mission as well as being a Tonka replacement. When RAF got their hands on F35B for real they actually really liked it – apart from the serviceability issues – then the question was ‘how do we get more of this sort of capability?’
Mixture of more frames and better serviceability.
Hence where we are now.
A number of people have said that ALPHA can take a hose type refuelling probe?
Alpha is not qualified for a refueling probe. The cost of that would offset the trivial gains in affordability of them.
I’m no aircraft designer – to me, crayons come in flavours…. but surely it’s just a case of build the nose section of a C onto the rest of the A and it’s done…. ? after all, the front end is common to C and A. It’s only the B that differs because of the fan.
Is this going to be a big problem or not? We will not have many airborne at any one time and the cousins usually have a tanker toddling about the UK and Europe anyway!
Depends on the scenario.
As a delivery of nukes, hopefully it will never happen and we are talking end game at that point anyway, us adding or not isn’t going to make much difference.
In their more realistic operational use as bombers which can carry a heavier payload than the B, then it could be an issue depending which nations we are partnering with during the conflict and the number of tankers available. It’s likely that the other nations would prioritise their own jets for refueling and that could mean ours are left grounded, in an extreme scenario.
However in most scenarios it can be worked around. The only time it can’t is if we have to go it alone again like the Falklands.
I must admit I was only thinking of routine flying, in a war setting they would be incorporated into any strike package along with NATO aircraft which would include refuelling etc surely?
You would assume so, but just like in Iraq/Afghan the US etc will prioritied own troops, and so air support will not always available for UK forces. Likely not to be a problem but there is the potential.
Nations will always priorities their own forces over the collective good, as their military ultimately reports to the policticans, who only care about news stories and their impact on votes.
Never saw that prioritisation on my three tours. Priority went to a TIC, no matter who it was (with the exception of SF – but again, NATO was equal there too.) I had CAS from USAF, USN, USMC, French, Danish, Norwegians – in fact come to think of it, I never saw the RAF except for the route recces from GR4s.
There are plenty of stories of it being the case either assets not available or pulled off station to support US troops, although it’s impossible to tell what really happened as normally only hear from one side of the story and don’t get to see the full decision chain.
Either way it showed the RAF didn’t have the air frame to properly provide coverage as your not the only person to report they rarely saw RAF planes providing air support.
In their even more likely role as a training squadron would they be likely to need in-flight refuelling?
US bombs, US tankers, might as well leave it to US aircraft and US pilots then.
So what is the official number for the total amount of f36b?
F35b
62.
First tranche of 47 plus 15 in Tranche 2.
But 4, or is it 3, of those are in the US and won’t be used operationally.
My minimum was 60, they are just there, assuming UCAV plan on Carriers works.
I quite like the idea of an A being used for training to free Bs, it seems sensible?
But overall, just wish Labour would quit the smoke and mirrors and order aircraft properly. A larger number of As should be in addition to the 27Bs, not instead of.
Or, commit to Tempest and buy more Typhoon.
Either or, get on with it.
I still have no faith that they will, they’re no different to the Tories.
Thanks.
Irony in all this is numbers originally (in 2002) were 60 to 90 Bs with a further order of at least 60 ‘C’s or 60 ‘A’s over a 10 year order period depending on CATOBAR decision then due in 2005…and here weare almost a quarter of a century later.
Hi M8,
Well they have actually done it and announced a real live order for an extra item of Kit. Simple reason for doing it was to be nice to Trump and hope it placates him (Spain isn’t going to be so lucky).
I agree the idea of the 12 F35A being assigned as the OCU makes a lot of sense, it frees up all the F35B’s for operational use and doesn’t use up airframe hours on training. The secondary function of being a UK component in the NATO DCA does have scratching my head a bit as to how it will actually work. Does the U.K go to the expense of re equipping some of Marhams hangers with WS3 and proper base security or do they load up at Lakenheath ?
On a different note only ordering an additional 15 F35B is IMHO opinion a very short sighted and risky move. Simple reason is the F35B is pretty well a niche product with a fairly small customer base. Once the orders from USMC (280), Italy (20), Japan (42) and UK (48 + 15) are met I suspect that will be it and no more orders will be taken unless it’s either a big order or cost a kings ransom.
Which leave us with 2 carriers and a pool of just 58 usable F35B.
It is thin mate. Ideally the 27B would be alongside the As.
I hope UCAV will supplement.
But we’ve heard of these jam saviour ideas countless times from HMG.
Marham isn’t far from Lakenheath, ironically.
Would the As fly there, what, a minutes flying time, or something like the MDPs Special Escort Group move them by road?
What is required to reactivate the vaults at the Marham HAS?
We agreed a contract last summer to reconfigure the 3 test aircraft and repatriate them to Marham. Completion is scheduled for March 2026.
Ahhh, I’d missed that, thanks.
But I presume they still won’t be usable in a frontline role and restricted to the OEU.
I can’t reply to your last message Daniele, but yes the OCU. Should allow other aircraft to be moved to 809 NAS and 617 squadron.
Yes, always good to do operational conversion on an different aircraft (eyes roll).
Estimates vary around 25-30% of parts are common between the aircraft. They are very different.
Which is why I suggested that, despite the possibility of moving some B to the other Squadrons, some B would still be needed.
Which is why I asked if anyone knew 207s F35 establishment.
a squadron of typhoons will be sellable based on British industry, pro europe and pro exports.
another 25 like our allies and air power will start getting somewhere
47 first batch. 15 second batch. Unknown if any more will be ordered.
I think the RAF have pushed hard for the F35A and will push for many more of the As and then demand the whole eco system to support that aircraft so US weapons, tanker support etc.
The RN carriers are going to be left with the 62 airframes as an absolute maximum but many of those are in OCU or trials aircraft so very much a reduced carrier strike capability probably just about enough to put at a maximum surge 24 aircraft onto each carrier or 36 onto one and a token air defence for of 12 on another.
What I’d like to see is the RAFs political playing stopped by a purchase of more typhoons which are still a capable multi role aircraft able to deploy all the UKs weapons inventory.
Beware Tempest.
Until the magic money tree of Labour 3.5 pledge becomes reality, where is the money for Tempest and F35A?
I’d always read it was one or the other.
I guess buying F35 A is the only option given the time constraints but wouldn’t Tempest be a better platform for delivery of nuclear tactical bombs given the (my assumption) longer range and bigger payload? And off course it would be a sovereign system.
One hears it will be a big aircraft, so yes, you’d think so
I agree Mr Bell. More Typhoons would actually increase RAF’s capability not buying 12 training aircraft.
Evidence this has not been thought through. A very expensive training asset. Nest step buy some KC-46, I guess.
If we’re buying new tankers it makes more sense to order another couple of A330-MRTTs and tick the box to add the Cobham refuelling boom rather than order a new platform.
It always struck me as very short sighted that we didnt order ours with the boom fitted. As ever, near term penny pinching leads to more long term expense.
The present tanker model is available already with a boom option if required. Already in service with other militaries. No need to introduce an entirely different airframe with all the overhead that creates.
Before whinging about numbers we need to remember the equipment plan coming up in the autumn, also the new NATO spending agreement. Further buys may yet be announced. Let’s see what’s released in the autumn before going full on into bed wetting mode…
Would have thought that with all the supposed internationality and modularity of the f-35 they’d have considered the possibility of someone other than the USA wanting to refuel in air.
The space is there in the F35A to fit the probe required, but in so far as I’m aware, no one has ordered the A fitted for probe and drogue, yet. We could be the first.
I’ve seen some comments saying this would be ruinously expensive, I’ve seen others saying that as it’s a modular system it won’t cost much at all. It’ll be interesting to see where the dust settles on this.
The cost will be in the qualification of the probe. Done by Lockheed in the US it will be last in the queue and very expensive.
Interesting, thanks. Has the qualification been done already as part of the B model development or does it require another qualification for the A model?
Nuclear sharing is not about having “independent control of an air delivered deterrent”. It’s being billed as an additional UK contribution to NATO (given the nuclear sharing fighter fleets in Germany, Belgium and Netherlands are shrinking significantly as they move from F16/Tornado to smaller fleets of F35A).
I’m not completely surve tactical nukes are needed, and if they are then I’m not sure nuclear sharing is the way to go.
But I would prefer, if the UK is going to invest in this capability, that we would have our own sovereign tactical weapons. If we are are going to do this, do it right:
1) You need more than 12 aircraft. 24 feels like a minimum to deliver a credible tactical deterrent in multiple places at any one time. A NATO war with Russia would have a thousands mile long front line.
2) Stand-off weapon preferable. Increases effectiveness and survivability. This is especially needed if we can’t A2A refuel them.
3) Sovereign tactical weapons. There are levels of sovereignty here e.g. use of own warheads, ownership of the delivery weapons themselves (a small stockpile could be purchased from US/France), being dependent or not on US/France for maintenance of said weapons, or having a fully UK designed weapon. Each additional level of soverignty comes with additional cost, so careful analysis is needed.
4) Ensure we can refuel our F35As ourselves. I’ve read elsewhere that fitting F35As for probe and drogue refuelling might not be too complicate or costly, as this has already been looking into for Canada’s planned 88 unit purchase. Other countries could well be interested in this. Alternatively, investing in a boom refuelling capability would be reasonably expensive, but finally allow us to refuel our P8s, C17s and Sentinel aircraft.
Agree.
Should be more, the nuke should be a stand off weapon, and independent.
Haven’t NATO got enough free fall US bombs already, without Starmer and his political grandstanding?
This sounds good to the public, but doesn’t provide a single extra aircraft overall, and creates two small fleets within a small fleet.
Note, remember Sentinel went years ago, its P8, E7, Rivets, C17.
Sorry, I mis-spoke, meant to say rivet joints not sentinel! Forgot about the E7s too.
For me the best part about having F35As is the range of weapons that can be fielded from them, and the additional options and effectiveness this brings, which this order isn’t sufficient to satisy. The cheaper unit cost and longer range are a bonus.
I have little faith in Tempest being delivered on time and on budget, so would rather have more F35s, be that A or B variants. As you’ve mentioned elsewhere, 62 F35Bs (minus the test aircraft) are just about enough to give the carriers real teeth and fully make the investment in them worth it, and some UCAVs supplementing them would be great.
That would be the death of the UK air industry and make us totally dependant on the US for future air platforms. Considering the last year that is a scary place to be.
Another 2 squadrons of typhoon will keep industry going till tempest kicks in.
Would any President of the United States ever delegate the dropping of an American nuclear bomb to another country when he can order US Forces to do it?
The concept of NATO nuclear sharing has been around for decades. The Germans just decided to buy F35A, going against a long expected train of thought, for the express purpose of maintaining the ability to deliver American nuclear weapons.
The US only has 7 or so active combat aircraft squadrons permanently deployed in Europe (although most of these are big ~20 aircraft squardons), so having forward deployed tactical nukes that can be delivered by allied aircraft is a good option if the goal is to stop a mass invasion of Russian armour. But I think the Ukraine war has shown that a properly equipped military can stop/slow such an invasion using anti-armour weapons among other convential deterrents. The worry would be that the Russians have learnt from their mistakes, and deliver a surprise decisive blow to NATO forces in the East before minefields could be laid to slow their advance.
No.
Like it or not the UK fielding its own sovereign tactical nuclear weapon capability again any time soon is realistically not going to happen – one would think that we are spending quite enough already on DREADNAUGHT and now this F-35A order without plowing even more resources into nuclear deterrence. Restricting the subject to what we currently know is planned, it seems to me that 12 RAF aircraft, coupled with the recent Luftwaffe order for 35 additional nuclear capable F-35A aircraft, would suffice to provide European NATO states with a credible tactical nuclear force – this especially so given the fact that similar Israeli F-35A aircraft have proven this type”s ability to operate in hostile airspace (against largely Russian based AD systems) with virtual impunity only a few days ago.
The Duel Key NATO tactical nuclear tasking would naturally result in assigned aircraft being supported by NATO/USAF boom equipped tankers if required, However, I think it is universally accepted on here that the RAF acquiring its own boom tanker capability of some kind would be highly desirable, as would eventually equipping this NATIO tactical nuclear force with a stand off weapon rather than a free-fall bomb – although I understand the latest versions of the B61 nuclear bomb do feature a ‘modest’ stand off capability thanks to guided tail kit now fitted to this weapon.
Yes Trump is a unpredictable factor of course, but neither he nor Putin will be in power for ever and if we ultimately don’t trust the US to meet it’s NATO treaty obligations – which was recomfirmed only yesterday by the way, then we’ve really got bigger problems to worry about than this relatively secondary question.
Yes, a brand new weapon would take years to develop. But so will delivery of these F35As. If we could somehow integrate a nuclear warhead onto an existing weapon that would speed things up (e.g. Stormshadow). But getting LM to integrate it onto F35A is another thing entirely. Does the US have any standoff cruise missles already cleared for the F35A that could be adapted to house a nuclear warhead?
The elephant in the room is that, whatever commitment we have made to NATO, there is no money to pay for it. Reduce disability payments even more to buy nuclear bombers – good luck with that one.
If the money was available, the Government would have given us a complete package. 24 A’s in addition to the current B orders; a UK nuclear bomb on Spear 5, and a working towards a solution to the refuelling issue. A highly visible increase in our military capabilities. Job done.
But there is no money. End of. So what we got, as others have noted, is the only thing they can give us: smoke and mirrors.
As I’ve said before, IMO the SDR was dead before it was announced.
I worry you are right. But I’m an eternal optimist! My biggest flaw!
I hope I’m wrong But I’m an eternal pessimist! My biggest strength!
It’s really weak the Conservatives wibbling on about “smoke and mirrors”, after their 15 year performance of highly resolute neglectful bottom-sitting (with a few exceptions). We need a competent Opposition to hold the Government to account, not a collection of self-deluded headless chickens or Nigel in his Bunco Booth.
I do wonder if this contract is either:
a – A sop to Trump reached as a quid pro quo nod and wink in April’s month’s trade deal talks.
b – The strategy as advised by Trump’s longest serving National Security Advisor John Bolton, that Trump has the attention span of a small child, so agree something that pleases him now to prevent tantrums, but make sure it is far enough in the future so that he will have been ousted or be 6 feet under, so that a rational solution can be implemented when we have a sane President.
European NATO has a pool of boom equipped A330 MRTT. The easiest solution would be to join that for RAF F-35A, P-8, E-7 & C-17. Also when the awful Airtanker PFI ends, buy outright for the RAF, boom equipped A330-800 MRTT.
RAF F-35A would be useful carrying weapons certified for other F-35A. So guided 2000lb bunker busters, JSOW-C, JASSM-ER, JSM, etc.
So in essence but into the whole F35A ecosystem.
I’d prefer we invested in Tempest and brought the whole programme forward, perhaps ordering some additional typhoons to keep production going until Tempest is ready. If these 12 F35As are out contribution towards NATO then fine. Leave it at that.
What you are advocating is a complete change to our tanker fleet and ordering in more F35As which everyone knows is what the RAF wants but it’s doubling down on an already sketchy decision.
By all accounts Tempest is progressing well, no need to try and change the tempo which would involve money being spent for no obvious benefit.
I never said that. Even 12 RAF F-35A can be useful delivering ordnance cleared for F-35A, but not on B or Typhoon. F-35A was designed when the West wanted to drop a few small bombs on terrorists. Major wars in Ukraine, the middle East Plus the feared China/Taiwan, need more ordnance than F-35 can carry. Hence Tempest & even F-15EX.
Having a boom on future A330-800, does not stop them also doing hose & drogue.
The uptick in expenditure and increase in platforms is welcomed after years of cuts to defence. If this is an interim position pending introduction of tempest then fine. It does telegraph to the Americans we’re series about NATO and defence and helps keep them in the tent. It looks like we will still be getting more F35Bs which is great for the navy.
However, I’d prefer if we went the French route and developed an independent capability that allowed us to give a warning shot to our adversaries without relying on American permissions or weapons.
Hi SD.
No increase in platforms over what was announced years back.
Second Tranche of 27 Jets, just split differently, actually saving HMG money.
Cuts announced as increases!
Who’d have thunk it?!?
A reverse Italian order would be good. 60 B/ 30 A
@ Carrikter – you are spot on! And I would also add that although the capability is there to carry if needed, that capability is being way over-hyped by the press. Almost as if it’s the only weapon the “A” variant is capable of carrying. But I do also think we should be looking at developing independent capability.
100%. I wonder if they will eventually be employed in roles wider than just training and nuclear strike. To make the most of that would probably require some additional weapons purchases, but hard to justify that with such a small fleet.
The Vanguard submarines carry torpedoes but they don’t go hunting Russian surface vessels. If you have a dedicated nuclear asset, you can’t do anything else with it that would prevent its use for dropping nukes when the call comes, or put it to unnecessary risk in the interim. So UK-based training okay; deployment to Estonia, no way.
Not sure if the F35a is the way to go. I can see some advantagies but many short falls, Air to Air refueling is one of them. I do wonder if the Typhon with the French ASMP-A/ASN4G would be a better way to go. If we did go down the ASMP-A and Typhoon intergration it would also mean the German/Italian and Spanish Typhoons would have the capability.
Can I see a use for the F35 A for the RAF yes, but either it means converting our tankers for a boom operation, using NATO’s Multinational Multi-Role Tanker Transport Fleet or converstion of the F35As to probe. My personnal choice would be to install the boom on our tankers as we have several aircraft that we cannot refuel such as the P-8, E-7, RC-135. I am not sure how much it would cost but I do not see any major technical issues as many of the MRTTs have drouge and boom.
No matter which way I look at it the numbers for requirements with a good cost return on investment (spare parts, mechanics/technicians etc) would be 60-72 F35Bs for the FAA/RAF (if 60 FAA if 72 FAA with RAF option) and 24-36 F35As for the RAF. My prefrerence would be 60 F35Bs for the FAA and 36 F35As for the RAF.
How useful is F35A in training pilots to fly F35B? B STOVL take off and landing are heavily automated and very different from the conventional methods of A, even if B can perform them without using the lift fan.
I find this decision strange for several reasons and wonder where the idea originated.
How does reducing the planned order of further F35B improve the combat power of the RN?
If F35A is successful in its non nuclear role, how does that strengthen the case for major spending on Tempest development?
If US commitment to NATO is judged to have weakened, how does relying on B61s, over which US has operational control alleviate that concern?
Since Trident has the capacity to deliver a low yield warhead, unlike other members of the NATO dual key arrangement, why does UK need a second delivery system?
Other than brown nosing to Trump and avoiding spending any new money, what is the point?
You are aware that all F35 training is synthetic – ie with the use of Simulators. I’m pretty sure that the Simulator could be configured to suit whichever variant you are training for. I cannot see the logic in having 3 different Simulators with the costs that will bring. The whole point of giving the ‘A’ to the OCU is that it is easier to transition to, it makes a better starting point for F35 Pilots. When they have competency in the ‘A’ transferring to the ‘B’ should be much easier and therefore cheaper.
So training to fly the Alpha’s then converting to the Bravo’s is somehow cheaper?
Yes, I know there is no trainer variant of F 35 which is why the plan to use A version to train B pilots looks even more peculiar.
The USMC, the biggest user of F 35 doesn’t do this. I think it’s simply an ex post facto justification of a really stupid decision. Would love to know where it originated.
because using our missiles in a tactical role would never actually happen. The moment the enemy saw a launch they would assume it was a huge decapitation first strike. They would then launch everything they had to stop us catching them in their launch tubes.
However the theory is an f35a dropping a tactical nuke will obviously not be a first strike and lead to the end of the world.
12 aircraft isn’t an effective frontline fleet in the context of NATO / Europe conflict with Russia and its supporters… It also sounds like a very expensive training aircraft, although I can see that it might be cheaper to use in this role than the B variant. Another, way to think about it is that buying the a few A variants might allow more B’s to be transferred to frontline squadrons, but all of this could be undermined by the need to create a second supply / spares stockpile for a small fleet…
However, the symbolism could be where the real value lies demonstrating the UK’s commitment in front of Trump might be the main justification for this move. How this develops going forward is the big question for me. How will it impact the Tempest program, for example? At the moment the signals are that it will not have a significant impact given the multinational nature of the program and that it is a next generation aircraft. Will additional F-35A’s be ordered or could they be converted to B variants before production starts?
Also, why hasn’t the 15x F-35B’s been ordered at the same time? Why the delay? We are aware of Lockhead trying to persuade the UK to switch to the EMALS and the C variant for the carriers, is that still a thing..?
I am concerned that the RAF / RN are having something of a bun fight and the RN has lost this round, like we don’t have enough to worry about given Russia and China’s behaviours!
If we do stick with a limited fleet of F-35A than we should procure a sufficient number to contribute at least one full squadron to the NATO nuclear role and it should be in addition to acquiring a sufficient number of the B variant to fully equip one carrier to 36 F-35 until the Autonomous Vehicles (AV) mature sufficiently to be fielded on operations. Once AV’s mature we should aim to be able to surge 18 to 24 F-35B on two carriers and then sustain one carrier at that level with the second at 12x F-35B with the balance made up of AV on both carriers in the opening phases of any serious conflict. Obviously, one carrier will go into ‘refit’ at some point so we are looking at being able to always have one carrier available over a long campaign. So I would suggest at about 72 F-35B if we are to be able to sustain some losses.
The way we are heading at the moment suggests that we will not have sufficient aircraft or people to be able to contribute effectively in any role…
At least we seem to be finally spending some money on extra kit, I think?
Cheers CR
What extra Kit mate????
People shouldn’t get too hung up about the expensive aircraft in training role thing, an OCU Squadron is a different beast to the RAF training pipeline, from Elementary to Basic to Advanced.
All our front line types have had an OCU, whose aircraft can move to a frontline role if needed, along with pilots and QFI.
Harrier, Jaguar, Tornado GR, Tornado F3, Typhoon, be they two or single seat.
So I think the training thing is quite neat if it spares B.
Overall it is still pretty lame stuff though, politics rather than any real expansion.
Still, HMG will spin it and most of Joe Public will take it in….
The Bs can still fly with the As. If the Bs take off from a runway and aren’t carrying the heavy B-61 then the range difference isn’t huge. Fundamentally there’s not a lot of downside to buying a set of 12x F35-A models because they can do everything the B can from land (and a lot of more), and they’re a lot cheaper per flight hour, and to buy. So for the land based training squadron, and the additional nuclear deterrent mission I see them as very good value.
So much for the supposed benefit of extended range when being used in non-NATO missions.
I am cautiously optimistic about this. It adds to the NATO pool, sends the right message over the pond, and east. It reduces the wear on the B’s. Plus we get another batch of B’s for the carriers.
Hopefully the new equipment plan lays a timetable for further orders as the RAF could really do with 3 squadrons worth.
Anyone know the range difference between the 35A and 35B?
Headline figure is an extra 150 mile combat radius for the A over the B, but it all depends on weapons carried, temperature, etc.
So – basically the F-35A’s will be a training/OCU squadron most of the time, and then swapped into a front line role only if urgently needed.
Yes, as can all Fast Jets in an OCU.
I’d be interested to know just how many F35B No 207 Sqn has on establishment, to see how many of that could be released.
Pilots will still need the B for the VTOL aspects of conversion.
A sop to the Americans, noithing more. A completely pointless puchaase.
And hopefully easily cancelled after Trump is no longer President and before the aircraft are delivered.
As others have pointed out- it does not raise any additional questions over how fully the UK intends to exercise independent control over an air-delivered deterrent, because the UK has no current plans to deliver an air-delivered deterrent independently. If we wanted a tactical strike capability independent of NATO then we would have to resume building our own nuclear free-fall bombs as well as resolving the refuelling issue. No-one has expressed any intention to do so, and it’s difficult to see what advantage that would yield. There are plausible scenarios where we might carry out a strategic strike independent of NATO support, but in what circumstances would we want to be engaging in unilateral tactical strikes?
Got to protect out potholes and crumbling schools…
So, F-35A and a nuclear bomber RAF squadron. Which squadron will host this variant and this role do we think? I’m thinking about the resurrection of an old V-bomber force squadron but, given many of these ….. 9, 12, 27, 101, and 617 are already purposed elsewhere, this leaves 35, 44, 50 and 83 Squadrons. A personal preference for me would be 44 Sqn, XM607 was assigned to this squadron (I believe) for the first Falklands raid on Stanley airport.
207. The OCU.
Already discussed at length in the other comments.
Oops, yes, do beg your pardon!
So we will have no sovereign way of deploying these aircraft beyond a limited range. In addition we become a vassal state for somebody else’s nuclear weapons. Which went down well last time round, I might add. Is it just me or does this sound like the crumbiest plan dreamt up in quite a while.
We are currently low on Tankers and MRPA airframes. With the extra funding would it be possible to purchase say 5 new airframes which have the boom. RAAF has it and so does the European fleet,
Then we could possibly retro fit the rest of the 14 Voyagers in the fleet, pending costs of cause.
This would enable us to refuel not only US aircraft but out E7 fleet, P8 fleet and the new F35A. Just a thought
So UK started buying the F35C,changed to the B(no catapults) and now the F35 A….This order ticks so many boxes..Trump,Lockheed,Nato…It beefs up Labours historic indifference to (nuclear)defence…The RAF get the version they always wanted(No way will 12 be enough,and they will be used for non nuclear sorties as well) and The Navy will eventually get all the Bs.Smiles all round.Wonder if 12+A’s arriving will impact Tempest?
I am 100% convinced that none of those F-34As will get a sniff at a nuclear weapon, B-61 or indigenous.
This is a BS exercise to save money on the next tranche of F-35s, seeing as an A is 30m cheaper than a B. This measure saves nearly half-a-billion pounds.
Hence the comments about OCU and training. Some idiot in the Government thinks you can train a pilot on an A and move him to a B, and if you can train on an A you need fewer Bs for frontline commitments. Ridiculous.