The Ministry of Defence (MoD) has responded to multiple parliamentary questions regarding the procurement, operational status, and independence of the UK’s F-35B Lightning fleet.
Responding to a question from Ben Obese-Jecty MP (Conservative – Huntingdon) on the timeline for delivering the remaining F-35B jets ordered from Lockheed Martin, Minister of State for Defence Maria Eagle confirmed that full operating capability for the first phase of procurement is expected by 31 December 2025.
“The first procurement phase of 48 aircraft continues to be delivered, with 37 aircraft received to date and delivery of the 48th aircraft due by programme graduation on 31 March 2026,” she stated.
When asked about plans for purchasing a second tranche of F-35B jets, Eagle did not specify a timeline, instead noting that the MoD “continually reviews the expected threat and the ability of our forces to counter it. Any further purchases would be set out in the usual way.”
Questions regarding the operational independence of the UK’s F-35 fleet were also raised. David Chadwick MP (Liberal Democrat – Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) inquired about the government’s assessment of the UK’s ability to operate the aircraft without external constraints. Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State Luke Pollard responded: “The UK maintains the freedom of action to operate the F-35 Lightning at a time and place of our choosing.”
Dave Doogan MP (Scottish National Party – Angus and Perthshire Glens) asked the MoD for details on the average monthly flying hours of each F-35 airframe since achieving full operational capability. Pollard stated that this specific metric is not collated, adding that providing such data would be at “disproportionate cost.”
He referred the MP to a previous response regarding total airframe hours since delivery.
Doogan also requested a timeline for when each F-35 entered service, but Eagle withheld the information, citing national security concerns. “I am withholding the requested information as it would, or would be likely to, prejudice the capability, effectiveness or security of the Armed Forces,” she stated.
Separately, in response to a follow-up question from Doogan about a prior answer on F-35 procurement, Eagle confirmed her willingness to meet with him to discuss the matter further.
I think there willli plenty of spare capacity on the F35 production line very shortly.
I’m not so sure. It is the only 5th gen choice at this time and so many countries have committed to it. Has anyone cancelled an order or chosen an alternative?
Germany, Canada and Portugal have backed out of buying the jet.
And it can be any gen you want, but when the aircraft can be grounded on a whim by Trump just by slapping an embargo on spares and support .
To say Germany,Canada and Portugal have backed out of buying the F35 is very presumptious if not spurious.The Political World is in a state of flux at the moment,when the dust settles i would expect all three to stick to the original Plan,Germany in particular has expressed no wish to deviate.
Canada hasn’t cancelled the contract. They are taking a look at it. All part of the games. In reality if they cancel part of the contract they will increase their own costs due to a split fleet. I can’t see that happening unless things really turn sour over the coming months/years.
Portugal never stated they were buying it. They would be better off going for something like Gripen anyway. They just don’t need anything more costly or complicated.
Germany went for more Typhoon over the F35 long before Trump’s second term.
Defence procurement decisions and delivery happen spanning a longer period than one US President’s term in office. F35 is still the best option if you are renewing your fleet without a sovereign option and the US is willing to sell it to you.
Germany originally went for a pure Typhoon Tranche 4 buy to replace its fleet of Tornados. But The US significantly put up the integration costs for integrating the B61 “instant sunshine maker”. So they then decided to go with the F18 as that was cleared. They then found (duh!) that the F18 would need to be escorted by a F18 Growler to get anywhere near the target, especially as the B61 is a free fall bomb. Which requires either toss bombing or an overflight. The F35 was cleared to carry the B61, so Germany decided to go for that instead. As it wouldn’t need massive EW support and might actually make it back. However, they have decided like us to retire their Tranche 1 Typhoons and replace them (unlike us) with new Tranche 4s. As well as getting some of the Tranche 2s converted to a new Electronic Warfare version to replace their aging Tornado ECRs.
The only reason Germany is buying the F35 (which seriously upset the French by the way), is so that they can still deploy the US supplied tactical nukes!
Canada is considering, Portugal never made an order in the first place, and apparently Germany is moving forward with the F-35:
“Pistorius sticks to purchase of F35 fighter jets
Status: 21.03.2025 15:39
The example of the F-35 fighter jet demonstrates Germany’s dependence on the United States. Defense Minister Pistorius remains committed to purchasing the state-of-the-art aircraft – and contradicts doubters who question the reliability of the Trump administration.German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius intends to continue purchasing the F-35 stealth jets from the United States. “The United States is and will remain an important ally for us – also for the equipment of the Bundeswehr,” he said, addressing doubts about continued arms cooperation with the United States under President Donald Trump. Europe and the United States “want and must gain strength,” the SPD politician told the German Press Agency. “This applies not only to the F-35, but also to our other projects.”The F-35 project in particular demonstrates how closely interwoven and coordinated industries are, the minister said. “It’s a multinational project. Significant parts of the F-35 are manufactured outside the United States,” Pistorius said. In Germany, Rheinmetall, for example, is involved in production.Eight nations were involved in the development. “14 NATO nations and a total of 20 nations currently use or will use the F-35,” he said. The user community benefits both parties.”
The problem is not that we see the US is an important ally but whether the US sees NATO countries as important allies ? Increasing defense expenditure may help keep NATO countries aligned with the US but does the US Administration see Article 5 of the NATO Charter a commitment they would keep in the future?
None of those nations have cancelled any F35 orders.
For us though it needs to be the F-35B specifically.
Doesn’t matter if they have a load of As or Cs going spare, as they’ll be no benefit to us.
I think we should get up to 60-75ish F-35Bs total, purely (or at least, primarily) for the carriers. After that, prioritise Typhoon production as it’s domestic production, so more boost to UK businesses, and we’re not at the whims of Trump or another MAGA-freak later, as you described above.
The art of the deal.
I have earned and received $19,683 by working online from home. In previous month i have this income just by doing work for 2 hours maximum a day using my laptop. This job is just awesome and regular earning from this just great. Now everybody can now get this job and start making real money online just by follow instructions on this website…——–>> Www.Earn54.COM
The US is going to have to do something in the source code now, hopefully the US military industrial complex reigns supreme again. Having a separate BAE lead development capability for Europe would solve the issues for NATO allies, if it’s good enough for Israel it’s good enough for ENATO.
And I would have thought – only right for the sole Tier One partner and contributor to original R&D.
A mere 2 billion. Goodwill that bought has long gone.
Paying out a lot of money for a Warplane that can’t fight is not the best way forward. Lockheed need to get their act together ASAP to ensure they are supplying something fit for purpose which the TR3/Block 4 most certainly are not with little liklyhood of such in the near to medium term. Shocking really. Perhaps Musk is right about the mega producers of weapons taking lots of money and giving little worthwhile to deter. Need to look at these over complicated weapons systems which we can afford only a few when what you need is MASS to ensure secuirty and I’m not talking about unmanned systems as they require a lot of support to get even the simpliest to work. Bobby on the beat is always the best deterrant meaning real numbers. Sofisticated high tech is not the answer in the end.
Paying out a huge amount of money for a fighter that could be quickly grounded if Trump decides to cut off the support is not a good idea.
At least the U.K. has a fully functioning hi tech aerospace and defence industry that could reverse engineer anything on the aircraft if necessary.
Most amusing.
Yes minister was just spot on in society many aspects of politics
Linked to your posr, if you haven’t already seen the episode, look up the one about trident.
The old torpedos from ww2 work because they were tested. Its a bit hard to test the modern weapons.
When polaris was delivered, the war heads didn’t fit etc.
This is an outrage
Yes minister, but the companies know we can’t talk about it and are the only option
Standard Eagle Speak.
Avoidance, vagueness.
Operating at our choosing should surely be different from supporting. Without the supporting, there’s no operating.
This Obese-Jecty chap asks a lot of questions. He must be fed up by now with the replies.
So…he’s ex military.
Gets my respect, and attention, straight away.
He is getting exactly the kind of answers he would give if he was on the other side of the house. The MoD were Tories hands for the last 14 years( prior to July) it was Cameron Osborne who rolled the nuclear deterrent into the MoD budget, before then it was funded separately. Effectively cutting conventional defence spending by 0.6% of gdp.
It was the Tories who dragged their feet over replacing the vanguard boats .
So while I have my problems with Labour I would not be so quick to criticise.
Very much so. I’m happy to condemn both, which i have done repeatedly here for years, and will continue to do so.
Yes, Tories had a dreadful record.
And for balance, in Labour’s 1997 to 2010 stint:
Pre 2010, facts.
21 Nimrod to 9.
Sea Harriers and most Harriers cut.
35 RN Escorts to 23.
23 Fast Jet Sqns to 12.
SSN to 7 from, what, 12?
MCMV cut.
RFA cut.
SABR cut by Mr Brown, reducing the heli budget.
Most conventional, so Armour, Artillery, Army programs cut or cancelled, due to COIN wars.
Directly impacting the army mess now.
Tanks, AS90 already being reduced when 19 Mech became 19 Light Bde, and more widely, 7 Challenger 2 Sqns were cut,. Some ( a single Sqn in UK Armoured Regiments supporting 1,12, 19 Mechanized Brigades ) becoming “Medium Armoured Squadrons” on Scimitar.
Numerous other cuts I can list on request, I’ve a very long memory on ORBAT.
So yes, i will critique both. My critique on Eagles evasiveness would be the same when François was there, standard evasive crap.
No party politics from me, I despise the lot of them.
However, as said, when I find one has an ex military background I respect that.
Still politician subject to party policy.
I firmly believe that Defence is a function of government that should be managed by a cross party group with teeth.
It is too important to be left as a political football.
Hi DM
That’s some sober reading. Good to see the balance and perspective from Labour’s time in office , it’s often overlooked (or ignored). It’s my understanding that when the Torys took over in 2010, there was a significant short fall on military capex funding, inherited from Labour.