The UK government has signalled that further purchases of the F-35A stealth fighter remain under consideration, following confirmation that an initial batch of 12 aircraft will be drawn from existing F-35B procurement plans.

In a written answer to Parliament, Defence Minister Maria Eagle said the Ministry of Defence (MoD) would acquire 12 F-35A jets as part of the UK’s entry into NATO’s nuclear sharing mission. However, she added that future orders would be subject to review under the forthcoming Defence Investment Plan.

“The Ministry of Defence will initially purchase 12 F-35A aircraft from within previously agreed F-35B purchase schedules,” Eagle said. “Future F-35 purchases will be reviewed as part of the Defence Investment Plan, which will conclude in the autumn.”

The statement suggests that while the UK remains committed to a long-term fleet of 138 F-35 aircraft, the balance between the short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) B variant and the conventional take-off A variant remains undecided.

The F-35A is the only variant certified to carry the B61 nuclear gravity bomb, making it a requirement for NATO’s dual-capable aircraft role. The UK’s decision to join that mission has prompted a shift in procurement priorities, with some F-35Bs now being replaced by the A variant.

The MoD has not confirmed how many F-35As it may ultimately acquire, but officials have indicated that the fleet mix will be assessed in light of operational needs, alliance commitments and the performance of the A variant once it enters UK service.

Although the first 12 F-35As will be assembled in the United States at Lockheed Martin’s Fort Worth facility, the UK remains a key industrial partner in the programme. Eagle noted that “UK industry contributes approximately 15 percent by value of F-35 production,” including work by over 100 UK suppliers and more than 20,000 jobs across the country.

Any move to expand the F-35A fleet would have implications for basing, training and refuelling infrastructure. The A variant is incompatible with the RAF’s Voyager tankers, which use a probe-and-drogue system rather than the boom system the F-35A requires. Eagle confirmed that the UK will rely on allied tankers for now and said sovereign refuelling capability will be reviewed as part of future force development.

The outcome of the Defence Investment Plan, expected in the autumn, will likely determine whether the UK’s shift toward the F-35A is a limited adjustment or the beginning of a broader rebalancing of its combat air fleet.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

100 COMMENTS

  1. I would be happy with more A’s as they help fill capability gaps but so long as it doesn’t reduce any further the number of planned B’s or reduce any future Tempest purchases.

      • The F35As are in direct competition with Tempest so I am personally against purchasing any (more) of them. Defence capability is not just about the upfront purchase of shiny new equipment; it’s just as much as your ability to manufacture and sustain it in the years to come.

        I can see why the RAF of today is in favour of the F35A over the Tempest (a bird in the hand is worth more to them than potentially two in the bush) but I think we’ll collectively rue the decision to purchase these F35As (and any future decisions to buy more of them).

        Short-termist thinking at its finest. Sadly, yet another bad decision to add to the others we’ve made in the past 30+ years.

        • The F-35 A’s are not direct competition for the Tempest, if anything the the F-35 is a replacement for the Typhoon. It’s been stated by the RAF that in future they want to operate a mixed fleet of 5th Gen F-35’s and 6th Gen Tempest.

        • I disagree. The threat level is rising very quicky. The “short-termism” is dictated by circumstance. The UK may have to face down Russia with only European allies. Best you get more of the kit you’re familiar with. I live in the US. I can tell you there is no guarantee that the US will jump into a European conflict. You don’t have time for jam later thinking.

    • The end service date for F35 is about 2070. If we get a significant number of F35As it’s hard to see Tempest getting a look in. Tempest was supposed to have a test flight in 2027, two years from now. If Labour stay in power, they will have another year after that. I can see UK government ok about delaying the project, to save money, but the Japanese probably want it speeded up.

  2. So not only kicking the can down the road, now the “wait for the SDR” excuse has gone, but now if we “wait to see how they perform in service” means several more years.
    Since we are likely only buying 27 fast jets out to 2033.
    Very, very poor.
    Operational need: We have too few jets, less than 4 others in ENATO. More are needed.
    Alliance Commitments: B61 mission already covered, we didn’t need to join it apart from politics.
    The military need assets. HMG are not addressing that.
    I saw a sobering list on X yesterday of what has been cut or gapped since 2010 alone. I knew anyway, but to see it listed was sobering.

    • If Starmer grew a pair, he would offer Trump a deal. Let the UK keep its 2% digital services tax & that money would be ringfenced to fund over 2.5% GDP defence spending.

      • So we effectively pay for our Defence by taxing his US Tech M8’s, I think we all know how that would work out 😖

      • We are already keeping the digital service tax. It’s Canada and maybe the EU that have to drop it. Actually we didn’t give up much at all in the agreement only agreeing to increase quota free beef and ethanol imports.

        • Because we offer a lot of free strategic bases to the US.. people seem to forget DG.. of course the US is paying for it it’s just paying under that table.

    • There’s the autumn defence white paper which should outline further purchases. I’m not inclined to assume anything major from that though.

      • However it was stated that all reccomendations in the report were noted and I think, agreed with.

        “Time will tell”.

    • Putting us in 5th place is probably being generous. I count France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Turkey and Greece all ahead of us in fast jet numbers, putting us in 7th for ENATO, and 8th in Europe overall if including Russia.

      Poland could well place a large order and push us back to 9th. Utterly ridiculous for a country that has had the highest budget in Europe for decades, and continues to have one of the highest.

      • How many 5th Gen aircraft do those countries have?

        What kill ratio do you expect between a F35 and Turkish F4?

      • To be fair a lot of those nations have pad out with old jets.

        Take the French
        53 Rafale B two seater ground attack version.. also acts as part of the French strategic deterrence
        33 Rafale C single seat air defence
        86 mirage 2000 ( jets from the 1980s)
        42 Rafale M for carriers

        So it’s hardly a lot.. admittedly the RAF have only about 140 fast jets.. but they are 5 generation and 4.5 generation no 4.5 and 4.

        • sorry but your numbers are off, France has more Rafale in service than the 122 you claim.
          in 2018 France had already received 152 /180 jets ordered (tranche 1-4). since then France has placed 2 orders Tranche 5 and 6 for a total of 240 Rafale by early 2030s
          since then Dassault has increased Rafale production to 3 aircraft per month and is in the process of increasing to 4 in the coming years.
          1. tranche 1 to 4: as of today, France has been delivered 180 Rafale (B,C & M) for french forces, of which 7 (3xB and 4xM) were lost in accidents and 24 second hand sold but being replaced (12 Greece and 12 Croatia)
          2. 12 ordered in 2021 to replace 12 used sold to Greece (deliveries expected to be completed by end 2025)
          3. tranche 5: 42 ordered in 2024 – F4 standard (of which 12 to replace Croatia sale) all deliveries by 2030
          4. tranche 6: 30 ordered in 2025 – F5 standard starting in 2030 (for ASN4G nuclear mission)
          as of today all Rafale in France are standard F4.1. F4.2 will start rolling out end of 2025. Confirmed by DGA (french procurement agency) at recent Bourget air show
          as for Mirage, 92 (64xD and 28×2000-5) are in service, they are all modernized and planned to retire by 2030.

          • The numbers I had were for 2024-45 from a pretty reliable sources I quoted the lower of the two ( 127 not 122). The aviationist which was the higher version stated 166 rafales had been delivered with a total 7 have crashed and 24 sold for 135 at the end of the year which is close enough ..

            Around mirage 2000 this is an aircraft that is being removed from the airforce numbers.. they have actually disposed of @ number of mirage 2000-5 and now have 22 mirage 2000-5…it will drop to 20 soon and there is an ongoing plan to hand more and more over to Ukraine . the mirage D upgrade was for only 50 jets and the fleet will fall to that number.. they are also longer likely to keep them going to 2035 but are now looking at retirement by 2030 and the new rafales will be replacing the mirage squadrons.. so essentially fast jet numbers will not go up it will simply move to an all Rafale for 2030-2035..

          • sorry but your “reliable sources” are wrong. in fact the french government own 2023 figures (available on french gov website) had 97 Rafale and 92 Mirage for the air force, and 42 Rafale for the navy (these numbers take into account the losses and sales to croatia and greece)
            since then tranche 4 orders have been fulfilled as scheduled by LPM 2019-2025. (Loi Parlementaire Militaire) and 12 greek sale were ordered back in 2021 for last delivery by 2025. (FYI on average Rafale take 3 years to build from order to delivery)
            the only thing missing from the original order of 180 now, are the sale of 12 Rafale to Croatia and 7 lost, ie 159 Rafale in service in 2025.
            92 Mirage are still in service since they were modernized with life extensions to be in service until 2030 at which point they will be retired (some may live on a few years more TBD)
            don’t believe me? check out the french govt website. any other source is not “reliable” by comparison

  4. That’s crappy, the F35As should have been in addition to the F35Bs if they’re not additional jets then they add minimal capability over the F35Bs as an aircraft the nuclear thing is a complete red herring and less capability to be operated from the carriers or FOBs, although I think the RAF has probably given up on operating them as they planned to operate the Harriers, which given the advent of drone warfare is likely the right decision. This stinks of RAF politicking (Again!) though likely hoping to undermine the RNs carriers.
    Confirms all that stuff in the SDR and talk at NATO of increasing the defence budget was literally just hot air….

    • I think the RAF only ever played lip service to operating the B from austere locations, it’s a sensitive and complex machine that’s blasts off like an rocket launch, theres no way your STOVL operating a B without destroying the road surface you are operating from and sending great slabs of burning tarmac in all directions….

      It can only be operated from a road, in the same way as a Thypoon or Gripen.

    • Forgot to mention that it makes no real sense to buy F35As if you’re planning on buying Tempsets in a couple of years. As I mentioned the only reason I can think of that’s convincing for the F35A is that it makes them not capable of operating off the carriers….

  5. The number one conventional military force the UK should bring to NATO is fighter planes and the F35A is the cheapest quickest way to add combat power. If this purchase for 12 is just an initial buy and we end up with around 70 F35B and 70 F35 A in six squadrons then I can get behind that especially if we can retain 6 typhoon squadrons.

    Honestly squeezing in three more squadrons to bases should not be a big deal. It’s that kind of thinking that has the RAF stuck in such a rut. As for tankers we can buy the F35A with drogue refueling or just stick booms on the voyagers or even better do both.

    The US is cutting its intended F35A purchase rate in half meaning there are suddenly lots of new slots available. As for pilots we have considerably more pilots than planes nowadays. We could simply go to the “extreme situation” of having one pilot per plane like we did a long time ago. This would allow for an attritional reserve of aircraft instead of pilots which is now more important than the other way around as planes are hard to make.

    • There’s no doubt that F35A represents an ideal choice in many ways from an operational perspective.
      If we ended up with an expanded RAF that comprised of three F35A squadrons, three F35B squadrons and six/eight Tempest squadrons, I would be very happy.
      A sensible mid/high mix that was capable of knocking anyone’s door down on day one of a war.

      If we are going to establish a real standalone F35A force,then I would suggest remodeling Leeming.

      • Regarding AAR, Air Tankers contract is up in 2035, so we can start shopping for a solution.

        I would suggest a buy of boom equipped A330’s, perhaps with freight doors to maximise cargo flexibility.

      • Personally I’d hang fire with remodelling. an RAF base and see what Hegseth does next year. If they pull USAFE out of Europe we get a nice fully F35A friendly RAF base for zilch.

        • Great idea, Maybe we could just ask them for it back, tell them we don’t need their protection. See if they can leave behind a few B61’s.

        • I think the U.S. plan is essentially consolidation to the UK.. they do seem have forgotten the UK is European.

      • I suspect that something like the numbers and mix you suggest has been agreed in principle.i.e. the conceptual acceptance that F-35B is for the FAA, a halting of F-35B numbers at the minimum to deploy one full sovereign carrier strike or 2 with allies, an increase in RAF fast jets – to be F-35A and the upgrade of remaining Typhoon fleet – with the cost of the Typhoon upgrades being moderated by transferring some to Turkiye.

      • What exactly are the RAF going to do with F35A? Bomb Calais from RAF Marham?

        Not good for QRA as doesn’t carry Meteor. Storm shadow and their replacement not integrated, neither is Brimstone.

        Obtaining basing rights for offensive operations will become very political in the future, dependent on non-UK tankers. There are already 400+ F35As in ENATO, struggling to see what will be achieved by adding to it

      • Possible but pass the ‘s over to the RN as the main operator of them and move them closer to the Fleet (RNAS Yeovilton) and push out the Army giving them Wildcats over to the RN too who will make better use of them!

    • The F-35A is not qualified for any in service UK weapons except for AMRAAM. And that’s only because Meteor integration is decades late.

    • I agree. In fact I would ‘go the whole hog’ and transfer the F35B fleet to the FAA and upgrade Yeovilton, and allow the RAF to concentrate on building up the F35A fleet at Marham. The 2nd tranche of Bs delivers a total of around 60 aircraft, allowing for 3 FAA frontline squadrons say; enough to provide a very credible carrier strike capability; one which can be grown and matured, and can retain focus if owned by the FAA. if the RAF can be built up to 10 frontline combat squadrons (7 Typhoon + 3 F35A), then again very credible in a NATO European context. Further purchases would then consolidate this force to the levels you infer in your post. Uncertainty and procrastination seem to be the watchwords with UK governments, with difficult consequences, e.g. the recent announcement that the UK Typhoon assembly line at Warton is to close with potential loss of jobs and skills.

      • Difficult, to say the least!
        They spent several hundred millions upgrading Marham, and the second HAS complex has not been touched yet.
        So a lot more needed at Yeovilton to enable F35 there.
        On top of that, Yeovilton has around 88 helicopters based there. It is full.
        So another location, with history of operating fast jets, runway length, HAS in place, links to GPSS, and SSA required, even before upgrades.
        And then add the hundreds of posts to operate the admin and support side of the station, never mind man its assigned units.
        Narrows it down somewhat.
        The FAA can contribute people to all parts of Joint Force Lightning, but not in its entirety, as it is joint with the RAF. So a bigger budget and several hundred more FAA personnel needed.
        I agree with the idea, but the practicalities of it are horrendous.

        • Yeovilton is jammed packed.. not only does it house a serious amount of our rotor squadrons it’s got a couple of schools and commands.. no chance your fitting f35 squadrons in it.. they also rezoned all the land around sound.. so planning would be pretty dire…

      • Totally against the stated aim of getting rid of the distinctions between the different services, which is I think a very good idea.

    • Jim there is a reason Canada is busily buying 9 x A330 MRTT with booms (4 new builds and 5 conversions done in Spain). They costed out F35A with drogue fuelling and went ouch, so as they needed to replace their tankers it was way cheaper to just add booms. It may seem like a simple thing to just add the extra capability as it’s already in the F35B/C, but LM will not be to keen on adding a tiny bespoke variation into what is a completely rammed out production cycle. Three versions being produced on just 2 production lines is a production nightmare as it stands so messing about with it would probably slow it all down. Funny little fact Italy is assembling their own F35A / B and they aren’t doing it either !
      If it was me in charge we would either be renegotiating /extending the Air Tanker contract (runs out in 2035) and getting the 9 core ones converted.

      It may go against the grain but it’s an agreed contract and does work as originally designed, we do actually need the capability now and there are a lot of other things we need to spend limited CAPEX on.
      Just remember we have an obligation to get spending up by 2035 and a lot needs doing before then.

      Oh and I’d put a big fence around the Brize Apron and then just let a dozen hungry German Shepherds out over night and at weekends.

      • Could the UK ever source F35s including spare parts from the Italian line? They seem to have a bit of everything on their plate right now wity F35 A&B, Typhoon and Tempest coming.

      • Agree with everything you say Rodders except for the GSDs at Brize – I’d unleash the Belgian Shepherds, far more aggressive.

  6. A decade from now the ghastly voyager PFI will be over & hopefully the RAF will have bought outright a fleet of 14 A330-800 MRTT. Half of which have booms.

  7. DIP in the Autumn is where It’s at.

    Then we can all moan and winge or even actively engage with the powers that be, if nothing tangeable comes of the SDR reccomendations.

    “It’s going to be a long and lonely Winter”.

    Personally I welcome the F35A’s for their focussing of minds in the kremlin “in 8-9 years” !!!

    • Imagine if we all stopped moaning and whinging until the autumn—UKDJ HQ would be forced to make some tough decisions and would almost certainly end up in administration.

  8. Safe to say none of them know what they’re doing now—so how can we expect them to plan for the future? Unless the Defence Investment Plan comes with real substance and actual orders soon after, it’s just more bullshit, I’m afraid.

    #Day24

    • Serious extra money won’t come until 2027. 2 5% will provide an extra 13bn a year. Until then it’s an extra 5bn which is paying for larger ammunition stocks. Housing upgrades and payrises. Industry is on the move, and alot of new equipment is already on order and in build. (T31, T32, Dreadnought, Typhoon upgrades ect) But what the long term budget increases does mean is longer term planning for kit is now guaranteed. And the defence budget is only going one way. Up.

    • Ummm how do you work that one out? At their current rate of advance and given the appalling scale of their attrition and losses they will be lucky if they have reached the outskirts of Dnipro in three years time. 🇺🇦👍

      • I wouldn’t expect a spending spree but I think it will consist of well thought through practical compromises. E.g. 3 Div get Ares as infantry carrier while some 1 Div Boxers get a IFV turret and cannon. Some recent articles saying that some 432s might be replaced by Patria 6×6 – faster and cheaper than Boxer APC: that might be a way to afford RCH155mm. They are making decisions on orbat changes and the equipment plans announced to fit. All very logical.

  11. This is all a load of nonsense.
    The RAF doesn’t need to evaluate the A variant. It’s been in operational service with NATO allies for years.
    Just send some people on a good old RAF jolly…I mean fact finding trip to evaluate the performance of the allied aircraft. USAF, Norwegian, Dutch, Danish, Italian air force all have the A variant. That’s point one.
    Point two- it’s no coincidence that the MOD teases is with this issue at a time when the Typhoon going out of production is now and this there are calls for more typhoons.
    I appreciate the RAF wants the F35A but the typhoon is the only aircraft currently certified for meteor, storm shadow, brimstone and therefore getting more typhoons fits our weapons, unless we are about to go all in and build a whole ecosystem around the F35A- so tankers and US weapons like JSAM, AMRAAM, sidewinder 9-X block 2s?
    Expensive proposition and if RAF gets it’s way and more jets are ordered what will the impact be on the Tempest programme.
    Don’t get me wrong I think 70+ F35As, around 100 typhoons and 70+ F35Bs for a combined fast jet fleet of +240 is where we should be.
    Tempest was always intended to replace typhoon, so a mixed 5th+6th Gen airfleet I’m comfortable with just as long as Tempest isn’t negatively effected and the carriers are provisioned with an adequate air wing.

    • Trouble is if they wanted Typhoons they could get them now couldn’t they? By going F35 they can now kick the can down the road for another 10yrs or so!

    • There are three problems with F35.

      1/ Very few weapons are actually (plenty planned) integrated, at this point in time. Those that are don’t even cover the full spectrum. So, for example, we have strike fighter that can’t do maritime strike (or land strike for that matter) apart from dumb / smart bombs. Ukraine pilots can fire a Storm Shadow missile using a hand held tablet computer while flying a Soviet area fighter & hit the target.

      2/ While otherwise, F35 performs brilliantly, its availability is horrendous. You need 3 squadrons of F35 to meet the availability rate of 1 squadron of just about any other western fighter (F22 excepted), especially if you try to ramp up past peace time usage. The more you push it, the faster it fails. Most wars, especially amongst peers & near pears last longer that a few weeks.

      3/ Hand in glove with point 2, its cost per flight hour & availability of spare parts, is unsustainable. LM will ensure that parts will be shipped to you as the system says they are required? How does that work in the middle of the Atlantic/Indian/Pacific oceans? What if the satellite that passes the message along no longer exists? Just how is sustained wartime utilisation of F35 supposed to work?

  12. Our numbers are scandalously low……..fitout the carriers with full numbers, double the As and get 30+ T5 Typhoons. War footing my arse.

  13. If we do end up at war with Russia or China, every single F35 and Typhoon we have will not only need to be in the air, they will have to down about 30 enemy planes each (without taking casualties in return) to even start levelling the odds.
    Don’t worry though, we’ll have a couple of squadrons by the time Tempest is ready… Anyone else think they’re putting the F35 off to wait for Tempest?

    • Have you seen Russia’s performance in Ukraine?? Zero air superiority. And yet you think they can suddenly muster 30 fast jets for every one of ours. Have a day off will ya.

  14. It’s quicker to build an air force in Hearts of Iron 2 Darkest Hour when playing as a minor nation than it is for the UK to even make it’s mind up how many planes it wants.

  15. We are crazy to tie our future RAF fleet to USA production aircraft – just look at the chaos a mixed up US President can cause when he gets involved in US armament sales/distribution. Let’s buy more Typhoons – if necessary , modify them to carry US produced weapons – we must ensure that no other American is ever in a position to ‘control’ our air force.

    • “if necessary , modify them to carry US produced weapons – we must ensure that no other American is ever in a position to ‘control’ our air force”
      Umm, what?

  16. Although I don’t agree with buying F35As, I do think that if we are buying them then we need to do it properly – get the the F35Bs we need for the Navy then get a reasonable force of F35As for the RAF. As it stands, doesn’t make sense – 12 adds nothing. However, first priority has to be with the F35B and a viable carrier force.

  17. Will the Tempest be certified to carry the B61 nuclear gravity bomb?
    Second question could the F35A be certified to carry the B61 nuclear gravity bomb?

    • Who cares? If you reach the stage of throwing nukes about, then Europe is likely about to be uninhabitable. Where in Europe can you drop a nuclear bomb without taking out 100,000 civilians (at the minimum + after effects). One bomb on London or Moscow takes out how many? MAD is a real thing. Who wants to push the button first?

      The nuclear card is almost impossible to play, especially in Europe. Even if you win, you still loose.

      • And where the hell is the GBAD network at to offer some home defence against all this? Need to crack on with it surely? Does it have to cost £30bn, look at lesser cost options? Hopefully the T45 upgrade continues and is being maximised and maybe a few AAW T31s added to the fleet?
        Meanwhile, lets hope England 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 plays better in the 3rd test against 🇮🇳 .

        • NASAMS is being considered, I understand. It would make sense for the 4 RAF bases that use AMRAAM on Typhoon/F-35 as they have crew trained to look after those missiles. So Akrotiri, Conningsby, Lossiemouth, Marham. $220m a battery with the upgraded radar.

  18. Apart from the supposed nuclear option (in reality dependant on the US giving the OK to use) What does the A varient bring the UK when compared to : Ensuring the B procurement meets the already determined carrier capability, requirement and strategy. ; The upgrade of Typhoon versions Inc.their use of UK weapons and continuation of the UK manufacturing capabilities ; The continued focus on Tempest development. I can’t help but think these additional purchases of the F35A at this late stage in the game can’t help but be detrimental to some/all of those, and smacks of something else as the driver.

  19. Some analysis may come out of seeing Rafale fall victim to Chinese fighter and missile combo with AEW targeting.
    Add the IDF performing at will over Iran , maybe the 5th gens are leaps and bounds above anything else.
    Industry needs more Typhoon but operational effectiveness probably means that comes second to survivability.

    • we don’t know what happened except for a lot of misinformation and no confirmed facts, other than IAF has acknowledged some aircraft losses, but without any further details.

      That said, from social media pictures taken it is likely that a Rafale tail number BS001 crashed near Aklian Kalan, Bathinda, India, which is about 500km from Pakistan’s border. However we do not know how and why such an event may have occured (ie technical issue, pilot error, blue on blue, or shot down by Pakistan – which seems highly unlikely since the crash site is too far from Pakistan’s border and the PL15 does not have anywhere close to that max range)

      However we do know that India had warned Pakistan in advance of the strikes on terrorist cells. IAF pilots were instructed not to engage Pakistan’s armed forces. Ultimately it was a poor tactical choice because Pakistan responded.
      After this failure of doctrine on the first day, India adjusted their RoE, and targeted Pakistan armed forces (bases, jets, AA defence…) from that point.. There were no losses for the IAF on day 2 and following days, meanwhile Pakistan was subject to many strikes and seemed incapable of offering any counters to stop India from doing what it wanted. This contradicts any narative that JC10 (or other) are so formidable, since they never reproduced the alleged successes of the first day.

      Furthermore it is highly doubtful that a Saab AWACS can work seamlessly with a chinese aircraft or missile. I seriously doubt that China would have agreed for Saab to do that integration and get first hand knowledge of said chinese tech. A more likely scenario is Saab Globaleye + F16 + AIM 120 amraam.

      anyway we will have to wait for the facts to learn what exactly happened and what are the lessons for the future.

  20. Relying on a one trick pony which isn’t free from faults and relying on America for the combination number to unlock systems is a really bad idea to have to rely on this aircraft.

  21. Britain has ludicrous power if it reorganized around European defence rather than global projection.

    We’re basically an aircraft carrier that has absolute dominance when it comes to the GIUK gap, the English channel, the mouth of the med and Suez.

    We could in theory, with whatever we’ve currently got in the shed, shut all global trade in and out of Europe.

    {If France and Germany agree and support we could annihilate Russia’s economy by simply blockading them}

  22. Indigenous fir everything critical should be the focus.

    This is lazy globalism in practice. When they’re needed, it’ll never function.

  25. The whole point of the carriers and the F35B fleet was that there would be no threat in Europe and so Britain would get this gold standard expeditionary capability for gun boat diplomacy and if necessary war fighting at arms length. Of course the Royal navy loved this because they were going to get the lions share of the budget and the prestige.

    That situation has now changed. The threat is here in Europe and whilst the carriers are still of utility in such a conflict they do not offer us all the capability we need. Look we are only ever going to operate one carrier at a time. The whole point of having two is that the other one is in refit while one is at sea. Therefore we need enough F35Bs for one air group, about 40 (+T&E & OCU aircraft). Meanwhile the RAF, who never got an aircraft to replace the deep strike Tornado role, need an aircraft capable of penetrating enemy airspace at distance with a meaningful payload. The F35A fits that need. Ideally we should buy as many A models as Bs. Three Sqns of As would give the RAF the ability to rapidly deploy to forward NATO bases and along with other allied F35As hold the whole of European Russia at threat. In an ideal world you’d move all the Bs down to Culdrose, near the carriers and station the As at Marham near the US F35A Sqns. 3 sqns of each variant, about 90 total would be fine.

    • A very accurate summary Rob. An out-of-area carrier capability is a nice to have but of less relevance to the European theatre, which has become the main defence focus for NATO.

      With the retiral and non-replacement of Tornade in 2017, we have been left without any interdiction capability, which is a central plank of offensive air power. Typhoon doesn’t fill the gap, its main role is air defence. The F-35b has the SEAD capability to defeat enemy air defences but is too shortlegged and has too limited a weapons loadout to be of much use in the interdiction role. And anyway, they are likely to be off on the back of the carrier somewhere east of Suez.

      The F-35A fits the bill for the interdiction role, with its SEAD capability and longer range plus greater weapons loadout than the B. We really need minimum 72 of them to equip 3 squadrons.

      The one operational carrier needs about 36 frontline F35Bs, which the current order of 63 (48 + 15) will meet now that the As will equip the OCU. No need for further F-35b orders for now., though a future order of another 12 would be handy.

      Ref the B, they all come from the RAF’s combat air budget. If the RAF is funding Bs for the navy, it can’t afford more Typhoons or F-36As or in future Tempests to project strategic air power. While the RAF is rightly the lead service on fast jet combat air, providing the aircraft, most of the aircrew and ground crew for the B, time to pass the parcel to the FAA. Future aircraft beyond the 62 Bs planned should now come from the RN’s budger and the air and ground crews from FAA recruitment and training.

      Time for the RN to stand on its own two feet and let the RAF get on with providing our strategic airpower without the constant distraction of the small F-35b wing.

  26. Going to evaluate.. what that really means is the RAF and RN are going to have a huge slanging match and set of power plays and if the RAF wins they will buy loads of F35As and smoother carrier strike with a pillow and bury the bodies.

  27. Why would the RAF want to short play the FAA over the F35Bs and undermine the carrier force? For goodness sake defence is a collaborative effort with all forces. Everyone is needed!
    Would have been good if these planes were fitted with dual probe/boom but I think an previous post mentioned fuel tanks are being developed?
    With all these air assets jam packed into their respective bases i hope the powers that be are investing in more base security, Shorad and a greater level of GBAD happening.

  29. i would like to see 36 F35a and 102 F35b.

    With the F35b in 8 squadrons of 12 and the F35a in 2 squadrons of 16s with spares.

    Having the F35a, will give us a land based stealthy deep strike capability from the UK, as well as they can carry the revised NSMs, and are highly effective Recon/AA platforms. The F35s go in first to deal with ground based AA ans radars and once control is established the Typhons follow. I personally think they bring a lot to the table and help offset the 60 Batch 1 Typhons been/being retired.

    100 or so FB35b will give us two 24 wings for the carriers consistently and enable surg to 36.

  31. Stop calling them stealth because they are nothing like.

    Israel has proven that despite the news block.

    And they have an appalling flyability rate

    Yet again the RAF is wasting billions we cannot afford.

    Who will get the sack and lose their pensions for their bad choices when they are blotted out of the sky because they cannot fight and are not very agile.

  32. Sorry I am late to the mix but I have been away doing some research. Anyway back to the F35A and the need for nuclear use. Whilst I am all for an increase in RAF fast jet numbers is the F35A the best investment. I am not sure! First issue is that the B61 nuclear weapon that is used for the F35A is a freefall bomb. So why do you need stealth if you need to be above the target. Sure you can get in better but it is still risky.

    So what other options does the RAF have: well the Typhoon. Equip the Typhoon with the French ASMPA-R which has a range of 500-600 km, a speed of Mach 3 and a 100-300kt warhead. This means that the aircraft can launch from range, reducing the risk to the pilot and aircraft. Also it means that rather than having 12-24 F35As for the task you have 100+ Typhoons able to do the task. It would also mean that every Typhoon in Europe would be able to have a nuclear stand off capability.

    The French are also working on the ASN4G a hypersonic 1,000km range nuclear missile that will be designed to fit the Rafale F5, which is a comparitive to the Typhoon. I am also of the opinion that MBDA could create a ship launched version.

  33. I very much agree with those doubting the logic of the F35A order. How many years earlier than Tempest will they be in service? Surely Tempest, with an independent British nuclear stand off weapon is far more suitable for the tactical nuclear role than F35A where we do not have refuelling independence and can’t use the nukes without permission. Yes, we would have to wait for a Tempest nuclear option but aren’t tactical nukes already covered by our allies, and specifically by France following yesterday’s agreement?

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

By submitting this comment, you agree to the storage and handling of your data by this website in accordance with our Privacy Policy.