The Royal Air Force has begun long-range operations in the Indo-Pacific under Operation Hightower, deploying F-35B Lightning jets to conduct joint activities with Japanese and South Korean forces.
The mission, they say, underscores the UK’s commitment to Indo-Pacific security and highlights the RAF’s ability to deliver strategic air power far from home.
“Operation Hightower demonstrates the Royal Air Force’s ability to project air power globally, with UK F-35s operating at extended range from the UK Carrier Strike Group, supported by Air Mobility Force Voyager. The RAF is collaborating and exercising with the Republic of Korea and Japan to strengthen defence ties and improve interoperability with the Japan Air Self-Defense Force (JASDF) and the Republic of Korea Air Force (ROKAF).
RAF personnel and UK F-35s will conduct joint activities, supporting strategic objectives and reinforcing the UK’s commitment to Indo-Pacific security. Central to this effort is the RAF’s Voyager – part of the Air Mobility Force, which plays a vital role in enabling long-range operations. Voyager provides both air-to-air refuelling and airlift, allowing RAF assets to operate far from the UK or the Carrier Strike Group (CSG) with sustained tempo and flexibility.”
Supported by the RAF’s Air Mobility Force Voyager, which provides both air-to-air refuelling and strategic lift, UK F-35s are operating at extended range ahead of the UK Carrier Strike Group as part of the broader Operation Highmast deployment. RAF personnel and assets had earlier pre-positioned in Darwin, Australia, where they participated in Exercise Talisman Sabre.
From that forward posture, the RAF began Hightower with exercises and training missions alongside the Japan Air Self-Defense Force (JASDF) and Republic of Korea Air Force (ROKAF). Joint training includes tactical integration, shared mission planning, and combined flight operations.
The RAF describes Operation Hightower as a demonstration of “reach and resilience,” with Voyager tankers acting as a key enabler for sustained combat air operations beyond the range of carrier-based aviation.
These activities form part of the UK’s broader strategy of maintaining a persistent presence in the Indo-Pacific, working closely with allies to ensure regional stability through enhanced interoperability and deterrence.
Not too long range as the F35 range is crap, and its more expensive then the F35A and it can not carry as much weapons, great buy as always would be cheaper in the long run to have bought F35A and fitted cats etc to our carriers. As always we do things arse about face it always cost more and we have less kit/planes. When will the MOD ever learn. Even you USA are scaling back F35 B numbers, and we have buy the F35A as the F35B can not carry nuc’s and lacks the range,
F35A is *not* carrier compatible.
F35C is the catapult compatible version.
F35C only has one single customer USN so the upgrade pathway is USN only.
F35B has more international sales than USMC.
The major advantage of F35B is the speed and relative cheapness of carrier deck qualifying the pilots. To use catapults takes a huge amount of deck crew and pilot training and costs fortunes. It is also a highly perishable skill and needs to be prequalified routinely.
Catapult landings are also high stress high risk events that can and do go wrong on USN ships.
The range difference between F35A/B/C isn’t that significant given the real long term usage case is with standoff weapons.
If the F35B is flying CAP over the CSG it makes little difference to duration.
My mistake i got F35A/C crossed over, The F35B has shorter range, shorter flight time and can not carry nuc’s ands way its more expensive, Why did we not buy the F35C even the USA is cutting back on them. It seems we buy less that can do less but then talk it up as great idea. We lost an F35 at sea with not cats etc, hardly much better is it, we had one stranded in India, they are a fix for an self made problem.
The MOD and the higher ranks are always talking up their poor choices, as if its great idea, we spend more to get less, then years later we spend more to fix it but still take it up as better. When is less for more better?
“My mistake i got F35A/C crossed over,”
No worries – glad we straighten that out!
“The F35B has shorter range, shorter flight time”
Yes a bit but not that much IRL.
“and can not carry nuc’s”
Why are nucs necessary for carrier?
If you went back to nuc depth charges then they would be cab delivered as before.
“ands way its more expensive,”
It is more expensive but the EMALS catapults are hugely expensive and don’t work perfectly yet.
The pilot deck qualification is actually really important.
The other thing is that VSTOL can operate in higher sea states – rougher seas than CTOL.
“Why did we not buy the F35C even the USA is cutting back on them.”
Because it would have cost £££££stupid to change the carrier design in 2010 and added the catapults. Only one of the carriers would have been modified. F35C is a small number of frames due to zero exports so upgrade costs per frame will be eye watering.
“It seems we buy less that can do less but then talk it up as great idea.”
We have got something superb for not a lot of ££££ compared to what the US or France spends.
“We lost an F35 at sea with not cats etc,”
It would still have been lost if B/C as the result of leaving the intake covers in the engine duct would have been the same.
“we had one stranded in India,”
Aircraft break and always have done. Lots of Harriers ended up in odd places that I know of. The difference these days is social media and camera phones.
“The MOD and the higher ranks are always talking up their poor choices, as if its great idea, we spend more to get less, then years later we spend more to fix it but still take it up as better.”
Actually the QECs and F35B present superb value to UKPLC and are a huge force – stronger than most countries entire air forces.
“When is less for more better?”
I don’t agree. We just need to fund F35B properly and buy enough to cover its various roles.
And stop the RAF tribalism ‘if we send people in carriers they leave – they didn’t sign up for that’ – which has always been the RAF’s pathetic excuse for not wanting to do more carrier based ops even back to joint Harrier days.
Some very good points there, yes the F35C is only used by the US navy, i was under the idea that the F35B cost more than F35C, happly to be corrected though, and yes one issue is RAF whining about carrier duties etc and always has been. For the RAF its should have been F35A for the navy F35B/C but more of them, having the RAF on carriers is not great idea just inlarge the Navy air arm and leave the RAF to fly the F35A from land, ie buy the 48 we were going to buy any way give them all to the navy. Then buy the rest as cheaper but longer range nuc capable. Operating type types not idea but we are going to do that any way with 12 F35’a for the nuc role,
The fact that your stating F35A can be launched of a carrier probably means you should not be commenting on here.
Sorry early morning my mistake, got my A and C mixed up its hard to be perfect 24/7, how do you manage it?
The F-35B has a combat radius equal to or greater than that of the F-18s which comprise the vast bulk of the USN carrier strike fleet; and they are vastly more capable. QE and POW effectlvely increment USN carrier strike presence by 20%; not to mention interoperability with the America class and other allied LHDs.
So same range as the jet is meant to replace, my point is its not the best choice but we do have a habit of make do and mend that cost far more but gives us less. We are world class at that, then we talk it up and make out its better,
As far as I am aware the F35A cannot be carrier launched, only the C version. I believe the C version is more expensive than the A, by how much I have not googled.
A fleet of C’s would be needed for uniformity although it doesn’t seem to have stopped starter ordering A’s.
Not sure we need a nuclear capable aircraft.
Range of F35b is…adequate..for most thongs and just because it is shorter ranged than an A or C does not make it “crap”. Or at least, please define “crap range”.
When the B finally gets to carry Meteor and Spear3 and hopefully we get some ASHM to hang off it, it will be adequately armed even if the A might carry one or two more things internally.
Typhoon should do the heavy lifting with F35 doing stuff it’s best suited for.
AA
When the B finally gets to carry Meteor and Spear3 and hopefully we get some ASHM to hang off it, it will be adequately armed even if the A might carry one or two more things internally. When will that be as there are problems with the USA letting have access up dates etc to fit them, shorter range, higher price, shorter flight time, how is that better?
Pointless if you have bases secure enough to operate Voyager from you might aswell base the combat aircraft at the bases? It also doesn’t take a month to fwd deploy aircraft in trail rather sailing a ship.
Well put. Carriers are a pure vanity project for the RN….
Vanity point taken but in fairness, at the time they were conceived I think the US was keen for us to supplement the USN carriers’ availability. Bit like having more bobbies on the world policing beat. So they were specced for ‘super carrier’ sortie rates and strike radius- not Nimitz levels but not too shoddy – Kitty Hawk class maybe. The F-35B is more than competitive with the F-18 and were it not for the delay in stand off weapons and our lack of escorts this ambition has arguably been achieved. The problem for all carriers is that AShMs have evolved in sophistication and now have much greater range than the carriers strike range. Tricky when the opponent has a longer reach.
The carriers were the right idea at inception and then the MOD spent over £20Bn from 2003 onwards fighting two disastrous wars on a peacetime budget, which decimated all three services.
This stripped us of the conventional capability we actually require as part of our core defence requirements much closer to home. Insufficient armour, air power and ships has been the result and
the carriers look odd because of that backdrop not because they were are vanity project.
You have no idea of the scale and distances involved in the Pacific, which are huge and easily outstrip any land based capability even with in flight refuelling except for transit trips. In peacetime you can of course plan to have your tankers neatly available when required for short hops required between land masses.
Unfortunately, land bases are very vulnerable to being taken out quickly by ballistic missiles something it seems land based air proponents tend to forget whilst suggesting carriers would be taken out easily by a drone or their favourite hypersonic missiles.
In reality you need both capabilities but in the pacific you need ship based air power, which will progressively convert to drones from manned aircraft in the next couple of decades.
Welcome to the old RAF arguments that cancelled CVA01 in the 1960’s.
The only problem is that it is impossible to maintain top cover with long range AAR refuelled flights as the RAF well know as the flying hours on and off station use up a huge % of the flying hours between maintenance intervals.
Or that to do so actually needs an incredible number of frames which RAF don’t have.
This was nearly demonstrated during the Libyan part of The Arab Spring when Cameron asked if we could send a carrier [the one we cannot foresee a need for in the next 10 years] and we ended up sending Ocean [? can’t quite remember?] and the US were actually using one of their Gators with Harrier to carry out are control and RAF were flying token flight for ridiculous distances/durations with ARR to ‘do their bit’ – that demonstrated the folly of of not having some kind of carrier to send in theatre.
Unrelated however it’s been reported that PoW just conducted its first at sea replenishment on CSG 25 from a US navy ship in the Philippines.
It does put the entire hype about missing RFA Fort Victoria in to context. Not that solid store ships are not very important however between fairly frequent port visits and cross decking of cargo by drones and helicopters the carrier has not undertaken a single replenishment from the HNoMS Maud sent with her. So it’s likely RFA Fort Victoria would have done very little.
RFA Tidespring has been conducting frequent refulling of USN ships which is seen as great training and very useful considering how short the USN is on tankers but apparently it’s a national disgrace for Royal Navy to have solid stores delivery by the US or Norwegian Navy.
I think it was just the first time we’ve used a US replenishment vessel, as well as the first double replenishment while doing air ops at the same time.
Not the first RAS of the CSG, the Tide accompanying them has done plenty.
Yes absolutely.
We don’t need FSS when we have friends to help, just like SSN’s Destroyers, Frigates, F35’s !!!
UK CSG25 reminds me of a Devon Cream Tea, a nice fat Scone with a dollop of cream on top and the Jam added later.
The F-35B is in need of a heavy long range stand off weapon. Range needs to be improved with drop tanks and/or buddy refueling.