In his first Lord Trenchard Memorial Lecture as Chief of the Air Staff, Air Chief Marshal (ACM) Sir Rich Knighton emphasised the critical need for the Royal Air Force (RAF) to evolve in response to a rapidly changing global security environment.
Speaking at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) on Remembrance Day, ACM Knighton outlined the importance of deterrence and defence, particularly in light of the ongoing challenges in Ukraine.
“The Western World faces the greatest number and the most complex array of threats we have ever seen,” ACM Knighton quoted General David Petraeus, highlighting the growing global risks. He pointed out the significant changes since his last Trenchard Lecture in 2019, citing the return of great power competition, the war in Ukraine, and the resurgence of Russia as key drivers behind the need for the RAF to evolve its capabilities.
ACM Knighton stressed the importance of air power as both a deterrent and a key aspect of defence, noting that “control of the air is vital” in modern warfare, especially as the RAF must now compete with increasingly capable adversaries. He referenced the situation in Ukraine to illustrate how contested airspace can significantly impact military operations.
One of his key points was the need for the RAF to be “match fit” for future conflicts. As he explained, the RAF must evolve to be ready to “fly, fight, and win” both now and in the future. “We need to do more, do it for longer, and ensure we can adapt to new threats,” he said.
“To deter against a costly war, we must build a credible force that our foes fear and our allies value. We cannot do it alone.”
In addressing the future, ACM Knighton pointed to the RAF’s ongoing efforts to upgrade its existing platforms, such as the Typhoon and F-35, and the development of next-generation capabilities like the Global Combat Air Programme (GCAP) and Autonomous Collaborative Platforms (ACPs).
These new technologies, he stated, will be crucial to countering emerging threats from countries like China and Russia.
The Chief of the Air Staff also acknowledged the vital role of NATO in securing Europe’s airspace and the importance of command and control (C2) in modern air warfare. He spoke of the need for integrated and multinational defence systems to address future security challenges, underscoring that “deterrence matters” more than ever.
In conclusion, ACM Knighton highlighted the necessity for rapid adaptation in the face of evolving threats. While praising the RAF’s current capabilities, he stressed that the service must continue to innovate and remain prepared for the complex challenges ahead.
“We must evolve to deliver more, to do it for longer, and to ensure we can fly, fight and win, today, tomorrow, and together,” ACM Knighton said in his closing remarks, reaffirming the RAF’s commitment to securing the UK’s airspace in an increasingly unpredictable world.
At the UK Defence Journal, we aim to deliver accurate and timely news on defence matters. We rely on the support of readers like you to maintain our independence and high-quality journalism. Please consider making a one-off donation to help us continue our work. Click here to donate. Thank you for your support!
Having UK F-35B be able to deliver more than just 2x 500lb Paveway IV would be a start. USMC efforts to integrate LRASM/JASSM-ER on their F-35B would be an off the shelf solution.
Plenty of plans to add things to F35B just needs cash and that pesky software we keep talking about!
I agree RAF is too small and a buy of 24 Typhoon as well as the next batch of F35B to increase F35B to critical mass is vital.
The buy boats are not that much of an issue at £5Bn over 8-10 years.
But we do need to get moving and keep moving before the hours racked up our tiny number of fast jet platforms starts to bite T23 style in the mid 2030’s – that is not far away in airframe ordering terms. Makes removing the T1s which were at about half of frame hours seem very dubious but as we know fleets within fleets are very expensive to run.
Buying more Typhoon instead of F-35 would be absurd. A nostalgic whimsy which, by recent accounts, the RAF doesn’t share.
Perhaps, but reality occasionally intrudes upon the best laid dreams ..er…plans of various AFs, if for no other reasons than mundane cost and schedule issues. Hence, USAF acquisition of a (currently) planned 104 F-15EX a/c. 🤔
They don’t seem to be in that much of a hurry to put large numbers of F35s on the carriers either!
I’ve seen the RAF have gone on record to state in the near term more F35Bs will be ordered to increase RAFs fighting power….and yet the contract wasn’t signed by the Tories for the much promised extra 27. So I’m hoping the extra 27 aren’t the only additional aircraft the RAF is getting as that will barely, just barely replace Typhoon tranche 1s scrapped.
It’s all smoke and mirrors. Bugger all actual orders and real hardware and real personnel.
Transferring all the F-35 to the Navy would be a better place to start.
Then what fifth gen jet would RAF use?
Typhoon which you have just rubbished above….which RAF rather like in its latest iteration!
I could just see that happening if budgets got fatter and RAF wanted to focus on Tempest from the mid 2030’s.
Unnecessary.
Please give me more money, says Chief of Air Staff.
Obviously doesn’t like what sees coming up in the SDR.
Nobody does
Old picture of Tempest. Pelican look has long gone.
He’s right to belabour the point that deterrence matters. Eventually it’s always about deterrence, acquiessence or war. Each has its own price.
We now have, give or take a few, the smallest number of frontline combat aircraft of any major western nation,. Particularly acute when we consider that we are supposed to be able to equip two carriers if need be. An order for 25/30 Typhoons for the RAF, with improved ECR/SEAD capabilty would rebuild our strength and allow the F35b to be primarily used by the R.N which logically should be our main oversea strike force. Another 10/15 F35’s would allow us to operate four squadrons of 9/10 aircraft. The GCAP is for the RAF so should we be spending on more F35’s.
Unless we increase the MASS of the UK Armed Forces with modern working kit then no one will take us serious in future. RN and RAF both need increasing in size with the Army having a far larger reserve force (equal or larger than the full time regulars) that can really make up the numbers when needed. The Air Element of the UK should be the largest in Europe but we are falling further and further behind others who spend a lot less. We are not getting value for money as tax payers.
It’s the old story Angus. No joined up writing anywhere. Too much fragmantation of trying to do everythin but not being prepared to pay for it. Meanwhile the three services, the MOD and respective governments all arguing in different directions. Drives me crazy.
👍
It has never been the plan to operate both carriers at the same time, it has always been to have one operational, one in reserve.
In practical terms, we do not have enough escorts, Merlins, F-35s or a spare Astute to form a second carrier strike group. If we get to the total of 74 F-35s that seems to be the target, that will give us 3 squadrons – to be shared between RAF and RN. We are not just acquiring them to equip the Fleet Air Arm, the RAF has air interdiction and close air support duties that would be high priorities in any armed standoff or confrontation with Russia.
I’m sorry but I’ve explained so many times what could be achieved I really don’t want to do it yet again. Let’s just say I disagree.
It has been the official plan to be able to operate both carriers at once in time of war, just not with both configured as strike carriers. The suggestion was that one carrier would have handled strike while the other covered littoral operations. The second would have only had between 6 and 12 F-35s, plus many rotaries. I recall that prompted a lot of discussion about the wisdom of running a carrier too close to shore and after a while people, certainly ministers, stopped talking about it.
I think that two-carrier idea was just kite-flying by some navy types! The reality remains that there aren’t any spare T45s or T23s or an Astute to protect tthe second carrier, without which it would be too vulnerable to send out on operations.
That position is not going to change over the next decade unless a heap of new money is forthcoming. Even then, there are probably some rather higher defence priorities.
I read the other day they’re thinking of making POW the Drone Carrier.
If the tech matures and we actually bloody well BUY something I could see that.
F35 Merlin on one, UCAV and helis on the other.
Yep, I read that too. I’m sure it is possible if enough money is thrown at it.
However much the RN might like having a second carrier at sea, I wouldn’t think that makes the top ten list of military priorities right now.
Our combat air force has been whittled down to very little and needs built up pronto. We have no interdiction capabilty and the F-35B is not the solution, othetwise everyone would be buying it, rather than the trio of small export orders for naval use. Air support Poseidons, Wedgetails, Rivet Joiints etc are all far too few in number to bring much to the battle.
The army is miles too small and the warfighting division has been hollowed out to be a shadow of what is required.
We rather urgently need a UKAD SAM screen to protect the home base and some serious investment in cruise or hypersonic attack missiles and drones. Quite apart from the array of weapons and sensors slowly entering the supply line.
Against these rather urgent requirements, and given that we now likely to pivot to NATO Europe rather than expeditionary warfare out of area, a drone carrier looks like a lesser priority.
If we have drones to fly, they can be flown from forwatd land bases, as everyone else is doing. When we eventually get loyal wingmen, they will take off from air bases. Not sure that a drone carrier sitting out in the Atlantic would be a lot of value. It would need long-endurance drones to reach any enemy land target, but we can already do that from Wattisham.
Kamikaze fpv drones would not have the range to get anywhere useful from the carrier.
And the question remains, we hardly have any Astutes, T45s or T23s spare to do the vital ASW in the Eastern Atlantic, let alone find 5 of them to escort and protect a second operational carrier.
A drone carrier group would be great for out-of-area ops v Houthis etc. But I think the main strategic emphasis is going to be on Europe now, a drone carrier in Indo Pacific is I would think a long way down the priority list.
Would rather the RN spent any extra money on increasing its submarine and escort numbers, which are a bit too thin at the moment.
“…If we have drones to fly, they can be flown from forwatd land bases…”
Again vulnerable to airfield denial, from enemy drones and Cruise missiles
If that was really the case, NATO Europe might as well close down its airbases and scrap its air forces!
Of course the bases and other assets will be defended by SAMs and air defence aircraft and drones will be brought down by Manpads, small calibre cannon or even sniper rifle. There are SAMs in development and production now with the speed and range to defeat hypersonic and cruise missiles BVR.
To every threat there is a counter.
It does underline the need for GB to get some long-range SAMs to protect the home base.
I think a drone carrier sitting out in the Atlantic would be of limited value. The drones would need to be long range, long endurance and would therefore be very expensive, as per the MQ9B, when the greater need is probably for plentiful small,simple fpv kamikaze drones. You don’t need a £3,5 bn carrier to launch these.
Then there is the question of the scarce resources that the drone carrier would require. It couldn’t operate as a singleton unless we want to get is sunk. It would need an escort group of a couple of air defence destroyers, 2 or 3 ASW frigates and an Astute for self-protection, same as the Carrier Strike Group.
We don’t have enough escorts to go round as it is, there is nothing in the locker to form an escort force with.
Again fixed anything is going to be increasingly at risk when attack drones are on the menu with even small nations.
Just as the Harrier had a part to play in dispersal, I think staying with F35B makes sense until Tempest comes good.
The real beauty would be a handful of B21’s. But think how vulnerable they would be to surprise attack on home soil. Not going to happen they wouldn’t sell them us anyway.
I think the Australians are looking at the B21
Read it somewhere
It is probably right in saying we wont have two carrier operational all the time. However it is probably true that we may have two in Commission. It may also be cheaper to do this with a huge ship. Re Commissioning one from ‘cold’ would take months and lead to equipment deteriorating rapidly in a Marine environment and add to costs and readiness
When one is in refit for survey, docking etc etc then we obviously only have one up and fully operational.
That stood us in good stead when Prince of Wales had propellor shaft failure.
Italy which spends far less than the UK on defence has ordered 24 new Typhoons to replace its Tranche 1 models and 95 F35 ( 75A and 20 B ).
This will give them @ 200 front line combat aircraft. GCAP won’t be in service until 2035. It seems obvious that we need a further order of Typhoons even to match this capability over the next decade.
Now Peter….come on. You cannot expect a logical well founded argument to interrupt the dreaming waftiness of those in the top jobs at the MOD or treasury. They will continue to squander what is in fact a large defence budget, continuously wanting more as a percentage of GDP whilst under performing in terms of personnel numbers and hard power.
I agree with your take. Other developed nations like Italy and Germany are buying latest variants of typhoon to bring some attritional reserve, strike power and pad out their armed forces. We should do likewise.
Absolutely.
Italy spends more on conventional procurement than we do. We’ll be spending about £10.6bn on procurement in 24/25 including £3.3bn on defence nuclear, so £7.3bn on conventional defence. Italy will be spending €9.3 bn on defence procurement (or £7.7bn).
It only spent €4bn on procurement in 2021/22 and has increased procurement spending by an extra 130% in 3 years. Imagine if we more than doubled our procurement spend what we could do.
Our procurement isn’t always the most efficient, but we also spend a lot more of our money on other things.
Don’t recognize the 24/5 numbers but you’re right about Italy greatly increasing their procurement over the last three years. They tend to get better vfm on naval construction from state owned manufacturers. For air assets, they obviously pay @ the same price as we do. The big difference in the overall equipment spend is the cost of DNE, forecast to be nearly 40% of equipment costs over the next 10 years.
buying F-35A for the RAF seems the logical solution. its actually cheaper than the typhoon iirc and uses many parts of the B and half of europe will basically be using it as well which helps with logistics. unless tempest offers something completely game changing over the F-35 allowing it to do missions the F-35 cant, then id personally cancel it and use all that money purchasing and upgrading a nice size fleet of the block 4 F-35As.
“buying F-35A for the RAF seems the logical solution.buying F-35A for the RAF seems the logical solution…”
Nonsense!
For a start the RAF tanker fleet will Not be able to refuel an F-35A, it uses a different type of refueling equipment, than F-35B. Only 15% of parts of an F-35A are compatible with F-35B. The F-35A would need to be more or less permanently forward deployed in an Eastern front-line state to make most use out of them. We might as well give them to the Polish Air Force! The F-35B gives the RAF/FAA much more flexibility where they can be deployed. Tempest looks like it will have a much longer range than a F-35A, so should be able to preform long range strike missions from the UK.
The combat air power that the RAF needs to contribute to NATO includes air defence/tac air, nterdiction and close air support, backed by a range of ISTAR, MR/ASW and transport lift assets.
We are short in just about all of these areas and there is one critical one where we have nothing at all in the locker – interdiction/strike. This is a key part of winning the air battle, the ability to destroy enemy air bases, depots, communications., bridges, defence manufacturing factories and so on, including enemy follow-on forces.
We should have replaced Tornado in this role, instead we have just left a big gap in our air power. The alternative might have been to have a large cruise missile force and a fleet of attack drones, but we have nothing like that now or in prospect. A couple of Astutes in the Eastern Atlantic firing cruise missiles, apart from promptly giving away their positions to enemy forces, would be a limited and short-life contribution.
The F35A is the best available aircraft to take on this role, due to its stealth capability and ability to operate in defended A2/AD environments and coubter Russian S400 air defences.
It is more capable than the F-35B, having twice the weapons payload, better rate of climb, longer range and very likely greater speed. It is also 30% cheaper than the F-35B, under £65m compared to to £80-£85m for the B.
I think that we have gone off down a blind alley with the RN’s obsession about having an aircraft carrier force. Leaving aside that it has limited value in the NATO Atlantic area and is itself a rather juicy target, it has dictated the choice of the expensive, short-range B.
Agree that we should curtail purchases of the B to to 60 or so aircraft and switch emphasis to getting an F35A interdiction wing in the RAF, as a matter of urgency.
If our Voyager tankers can’t refuel F-35As, then we need to sort the tankers out with suitable probes, the tankers shortcomings cannot be allowed to dictate air power strategy!
An F-35A could anyway operate from a forward base in Germany and have the combat radius to operate over the Russian border as it stands, without being dependent on mid-air refuelling. Its range will increase considerably with the new engine planned by the USAF.
F-35B’s forward deployed somewhere in the East, would be for less vulnerable to airfield denial.
“We should have replaced Tornado in this role, instead we have just left a big gap in our air power.”
Agreed, that a true successor to the Tornado, the long range FOAS project was not procured, and was cancelled in 2005.
The F-35B was really a USMC replacement for the Harrier AV-8B, which the MoD chose to replace RAF GR-x’s and FAA Sea Harriers.
Not sure could the RAF operated it’s F-35B’s as like the GR-9’s? If so that would call for separate RAF CAS squadrons of F-35B’s, with a gun pod, In emergencies, RAF F-35B’s could be deployed on carriers like in 1982 with GR-3’s deployed to sea.
The P&W F135-600 engine is a shed load more powerful than the latest RR Pegasus Mk107, where it’s 27,000lbf vs 23,800lbf on dry military power, not to mention the additional thrust provided by the RR Lift Fan ( 20,000lbf). Admittedly the F35B is a lot heavier than a GR9 Harrier. But its the additional lift force (thrust) that is the issue.
In the austere sites in Germany, the Harrier Force used the AM2 Aluminium alloy matting. This was also used to build the forward operating base at San Carlos during the 1982 Falkland’s War. There, the engineers built a 400m runway and parking areas. The F35B has shown it can do rolling take-offs and landing in significantly less length. However, the aft nozzle is directed downwards, so will it be too much for the matting? I guess it will depend upon the ground the matting is fixed to and how the matting is anchored!
Unlike the B2 and to an extent the F22. The F35 can stay outside longer, its embedded radar absorbent material (eRAM), seems to be more resilient to UV than the other stealth aircraft. As witnessed by having the F35B parked on the deck for a lot of the QE’s World tour. Which would mean operating away from the main operating base in austere locations should be doable. Plus the aircraft are likely to be stored in hides as per the Harrier days, if operating from wooded areas.
Maintenance is a big question. How much can be done at austere sites. With the Harrier, you could do engine changes in the field. Can this be done with the F35. Arming and refuelling is not a problem. Perhaps as importantly, can the aircraft’s problematic automated logistics information system (ALIS) still work when not connected to a network, when used from austere sites?
“…I think that we have gone off down a blind alley with the RN’s obsession about having an aircraft carrier force.Leaving aside that it has limited value in the NATO Atlantic…”
Nonsense, the Russian Northern Fleet is a threat to the UK with about 30
attack submarines of sorts. Some are cruise missile armed.
A QE carrier with several ASW helicopters embarked deployed to North Atlantic, will be able to hurt for those RuZZian subs more efficiently than a lone frigate.
The real nightmare that cant be far off is the Chinese Navy with carriers basing themselves in South Africa or Brazil. They have just announced they are building a huge Port in Peru. Next stop Brazil?
I just hope Lammy doesn’t suddenly decide to give away St Helena and Ascension. I secretly hope Trump rubbishes the giving away of Chagos. Oh!
👍Agreed !
Neither could the RAF Jaguar’s be deployed to the Falklands task-force in 82!
“…Unless Tempest offers something completely game changing over the F-35…”
The MoD should seriously consider Short Take-off and Landing (STOL) for Tempest, with swirl nozzle for thrust vectoring, making it less vulnerable to airfield denial.
I think the MoD’s user requirements are now I believe set. Which for a platform that can replace Typhoon in its long range air defence role. But also as a long range strike aircraft. But to do both of these roles stealthily, hence the internal weapons bay requirement. However, weapons bays come at the price of internal volume that is normally used for fuel. So the aircraft has to be proportionally bigger to account for the required fuel volume. Or you keep the aircraft smaller and become overly reliant on aerial refuelling ala the F22.
Put all of these factors together and the result is that the aircraft is going to be big, significantly bigger than a Typhoon. There are rumours that it will be closer in size to a F111. Which probably it makes it impractical for a carrier version. The large surface area delta wing will give it some STOL performance. Though without a canard, it wont be as good as a Gripen for example. Judging by the rumours coming out of RR about the new engine, which again are going to be significantly bigger than the EJ200. It will likely have a surplus of thrust to help STOL, especially if this was coupled with 2D thrust vectoring. The 2D exhaust does have stealth benefits plus helps flight controls at altitude.
So Tempest maybe able to take-off from a deck of a QE carrier, that would be very interesting.
So a a compliment of 4-6 Tempest and 12 F-35B for CAP?
Where to start though?
Too few P8s
Too few E7s
Too few F35s
Too few trainers
Typhoon fleet should have received the airframe updates
Typhoon still has no AESA radar
Too few pilots
No small tactical transport aircraft
No AShM for the F35
No medium/long range GBAD
That’s been cheerful 🙄 but your right 👍
You fix everything. You choose defence of the realm over foreign aid, net zero and rainbow police cars.
Let’s face it, the upcoming SDR recommendations will be ignored by HMG. I trust Lord Robertson and his Team will do their due diligence and present a thorough report on what’s needed etc.,.
I don’t trust HMG however, who will pat everyone on the back and thank them for all their hard work – only to sweep it under the carpet.
We all know – as do the defence chiefs – that there will be no more money from HMG and the Armed Forces will be lucky to keep what they have. At best, it will be ‘Rob Peter to pay Paul’. Labour – just like the Conservatives – have no interest in defence.
Hope ACM doest get the sack for speaking out 😟 🇬🇧
Aye indeed. Gen Patrick Sanders got pushed out prematurely by the high heid civil servant bosses at the MOD for not following the alls well party line. A pity that, looked to be a pretty capable service chief.
It might help then if the MOD stop making the RAF smaller both in terms of aircraft and people and weapons
Agreed, however this lot of 6th form clowns we call a Government have increase the defence budget by just enough to refill munition stocks we have donated to Ukraine! Not enough money for defence, not enough political capital in defence and not enough sensible left wingers in the Government to understand defence! Priorities are the RN, then the RAF then the Army, and the Armies being AD and investing in a number of new RA units which include drones both offensive/defensive and OS both barrels and tubes! Cheers.
Oi, I’m a sixth form clown and I think I could do a much better job!
Fourth form behaviour at best.
Fourth form, wow you must know David Lammey…..👍
I have to teach the 4th form drill once a week, that was the worst insult I could come up with.
I know second formers with more self-awareness than Mr Lammy.
If, as looks likely, F35 block 4 wont be ready until @ 2030, Tempest development could by then be substantially completed with an IOC only a year or two later.
The RAF wont need more F35s A or B once an equally stealthy Tempest is available. Though the original plan for 138 to replace Harriers on a 1 for 1 basis made sense at the time, the incredibly slow development of the aircraft means the context has changed. We really only need enough F35 for carrier operations. For the rest, air to air or deep strike, Tempest will be the only manned combat aircraft the RAF will need.
🙄