The UK’s first batch of F-35B Lightning II jets is on track for full delivery, with the final aircraft expected to arrive by 2026, according to a parliamentary response from the Ministry of Defence.
Responding to a question from Conservative MP Ben Obese-Jecty, Defence Minister Maria Eagle confirmed that “the declaration of Full Operating Capability for the first procurement phase is scheduled to occur no later than 31 December 2025, with graduation as a Government Major Projects Portfolio programme by 31 March 2026.”
She added that “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.”
The F-35B, a short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) variant of the fifth-generation fighter, is central to the UK’s carrier strike capability, operating from both RAF bases and the Royal Navy’s Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers.
While the first 48 aircraft are nearing full operational status, the UK has yet to confirm the timeline for further F-35B orders beyond this initial batch. The total fleet size is expected to increase, though procurement details remain under discussion.
A UK Defence Command paper published on 22 March 2021 revised the previous commitment to procuring 138 F-35s, instead stating that the fleet size would be increased beyond the 48 aircraft already on order. The following day, the First Sea Lord suggested that the total number of F-35Bs in UK service would likely be between 60 and 80.
I hope further purchases of this aircraft is risk assessed against an increasingly untrustworthy US government.
While I don’t believe for one second the aircraft has a kill switch, the previously unthinkable situation of the US government slapping an export embargo on the aircraft spares and support must be factored into any future purchases.
While we are fortunate to have one of the most capable aerospace companies on the planet who could reverse engineer anything on the aircraft. This all comes at a time and cost.
Further I hope they are seriously rethinking the decision not to make Tempest carrier capable again. This decision was made in a very different world where the unthinkable has turned into the thinkable has turned into a nightmare.
I think a carrier Tempest decision can wait four years, don’t you? We are committed to getting a large land-based plane in a very short timescale – operation ten years from now. Interupting that for any reason is a really bad idea. We should learn a different lesson from the F-35, that a carrier-based plane is different from a land-based one. If we create a carrier based plane, be it STOVL or CATOBAR, it should not affect progress on the land-based plane, but it should be treated as a separate project using the same technologies.
That sounds very sensible. I would very much like to replace the F35Bs with a fully sovereign solution at some point but this can’t be rushed and it absolutely mustn’t derail the existing GCAP/Tempest programme. Continually changing the specs is one of the worst things you can do in any procurement programme. Build GCAP first and then see if it can be adjusted to provide a carrier based alternative (pretty unlikely I would have thought but who knows).
Given where we are with MAGA, GCAP seems to have a very bright future and I expect we will be very pleased in the coming decades that we invested in the project.
On the other hand, it will be interesting to see where SCAF ends up. I believe that Germany tends to prefer larger sized aircraft (like GCAP!) while the French would want a carrier based design e.g. on the smaller side. No wonder France has decided to focus on an upgraded Rafale and a stealth wingman.
Good point Tim the flow now seems to be moving towards larger aircraft if fighter bomber aircraft are considered practical at all (and most experts seem to agree we are still years away from drones doing the job whatever rocket man thinks) in the future at all. They need to have exceptional range and missile/ordnance carriage potential to be really useful, it’s why the US airforce paused NGAD and why F-35 has found so many detractors. A few years ago the US Air force favoured a new stealthy specialist tanker over NGAD now as that program is so expensive a return to NGAD but a larger airframe with more than air superiority capabilities (mainly due to the F-35s perceived shortcomings) is gaining favour and traditional tankers and/or drone tankers persisted with but generally operating farther from danger. This means a bigger longer range more flexible aircraft with larger capacity is preferred similar it seems to Tempest. Even B-21s were considered a better bet than an aircraft F-22 sized which without refuelling has a mediocre range even if engines have improved somewhat since then.
So as you say where does this leave the Franco German project even if France’s new carrier would be far more capable of a larger airframe than its present pocket carrier. The other consideration is how will a land based aircraft as will be Germany’s priority be compromised by making it in some form carrier capable? As I say above the whole concept of the fighter/bomber whatever its exact focus is beginning to be questioned so one presumes that any thirties based jet design will have to be exceptional to extract full capacity from the concept. It will be interesting to see how the 3 main competitors pan out but it seems having Japan on board and thus reportedly upping the size and range has been a very fortunate move.
Can’t see a STOVL version of the Tempest ever being financially viable. We’d have to implement so version of cats and traps on the QE carriers. This has always been the issue with these carrier not fitting with CATS and traps may have saved a couple of billion in build cost but have paid far more than this compensating for this choice. We’re tied to very expensive F35B as the only available aircraft spares provided by a now unreliable ally, half a solution with crowsnest
Fitting them would have resulted in two scenarios. 1. total redesign of the ship to accommodate old tech steam cats/traps which actually worked, this was not viable as the ship design was done. 2. fitting EMALS which didnt work and is barely reliable as of yet, the headlines of ships with no planes would have been replaced with ships unable to launch planes.
Indeed James you have highlighted points that I have often put across. Yes Cats and Traps were considered for this design and the overall design didn’t change much even when the choice for Stovl was made, the space indeed is still there below the deck. But you are right the only choice back then was steam catapults which would have been dated technology immediately. Emals would as you say would have been a press disaster beyond the carriers without planes we already experienced, the teething problems were horrendous both for the US and it seems even more for the Chinese. So we would have had to go US and suffered that with terrible delays or gone with our own design that was being worked on which one presumes would have had similar or even worse development problems and at very great cost too. So it wasn’t really practical at the time sadly even if different problems have resulted now.
I agree that a STOVL version wouldn’t be a runner. Instead, I would like us to transition to a fully sovereign CATOBAR based solution but that would be really expensive initially. Maybe a carrier based Tempest but it would likely have to be something else (a licensed built FCAS?!!!).
Longer term, we should have much better control of the costs as it would mostly be costed in £sterling and we wouldn’t be dependent on the ‘boondoggle’ that is the US procurement process (the cost of which is then further exacerbated by a strong US$).
(We’re capable of making our own procurement mistakes so we don’t need to rely on anyone else’s to cock it up! :))
However, I could only see it being possible option if it became part of our core offering to any NATO successor organisation – potentially alongside more strategic and enabling assets like CASD, ASW, Air defence, airlift and EW/Intelligence.
These are all higher tech capabilities but they are also all pretty expensive in aggregate.
Cheers.
I seriously doubt there will ever be a carrier version of Tempest.
It would be prohibitively expensive; either creating a version of the plane that has STOVL capabilities like the F-35B, or reconfiguring the carriers to CATOBAR operations; either of which would cost a fortune. If we went with a STOVL Tempest it would be best to develop it first of all and then build a STOVL version after. Making them all STOVL aircraft would massively increase the cost and complexity, which would put off potential export customers.
What’s far more likely is that we’ll place increased emphasis on drone aircraft, using the planned smaller EMALS launcher for that. Heck, the day might come where there is only a token force of F-35s or even none at all on board a QE carrier, but instead an all-drone airwing. This, obviously, would be decades away, but could be possible.
Here’s an idea nobody has mentioned: just build a different plane.
Expecting one plane to do the job of three, for the price of one, while being on time and making a profit was peace dividend thinking.
Maverick !
It won’t happen but I’d like to see us take another look at something like Taranis as an uncrewed aircraft, and/or look to build BAE Replica as a manned platform.
Taranis was a concept, it was at the time the most advanced design the UK had ever produced, it got merged with the French project and disappeared shortly after, It was a scale model only, using the RR Ardour engine, it flew and data was collected. I would imagine that some of it will be used in Tempest.
… and indeed fed into the follow up project with blown flaps (name escapes me) that was certainly flying into the 20s and since as you say fed into Tempest, indeed Tempest IS the modern Replica, (which was paid off as an entrance fee to F-35) some of that work has as a result fed into F-35 and overall has contributed towards Bae being able to fly a demonstrator so quickly and have a tight development schedule at all for Tempest, a lot of the work was already there as a base to work from. No coincidence the original full scale mock up (which had not been scrapped after all those years) was seen being rolled out and moved around the same time as Tempest got the go ahead.
Probably a heretical question but can’t we buy Rafales for our carriers?
I am hugely skeptical about the F35 in any guise, it seems hard to build, full of bugs, with software problems and we don’t have enough of them. I’d get downvoted to oblivion for saying this on Reddit but is the F35 a pink elephant?
Well for good or bad a lot of people are indeed questioning it now and Lockheed Martin are getting very jittery, jeez the latest long delay spec is still only being flown on test aircraft not frontline ones and the next nebulous date for frontline aircraft (US only) getting it is ‘some time later this year’. At best the Airforce would not have designed it this way now simply too small, aerodynamically compromised and short ranged ideally for thirties warfare. But it is what it is so the best bad choice for many purposes.
Interesting that they assess FOC in December. Normally FOC is full spec on the platform capability (IE sensor and weapon integration) plus trained and competent crews proven on operational training in sufficient numbers to meet full operational requirements.
So – either they have changed what FOC means for Lightning Force (i.e. they are happy with interim weapons load, no TR3 / Block 4 etc) and they’ve just decided it’s two operational squadrons exercised across the full spectrum of tasks OR they have found a way to rapidly accelerate all aspects of the original FOC definition.
“Full Operating Capability for the first procurement phase” will probably defined as getting 48 planes.
FOC isn’t defined by future upgrades and weapons. Typhoon was declared as FOC long before project Centurion.
Typhoon was declared FOC for air to air. The subsequent upgrades provided an omnirole capability.
When F35 was procured, the capability procured included integration of U.K. weapons including Meteor.
Same for other users, hence LM pausing deliveries because of TR3 issues.
… and despite reopening of deliveries those TR3 issues remain … certainly as regards to whether it is yer suitable for aircraft in active service Squadrons and it seems we are a long way from gaining such aircraft as at best it will be only US versions that get it if at all it
this year.
Great. And stop.
Go for tiffies over F35B.
For years,France was treated as unreliable and we must make that decision with the US; their political leadership can not be trusted and we need to identify every capability gap we have and begin recreating the those structures as scaleable, agile microcosm that can be enlarged but deliver the initial seedcorn.
The US can not be trusted and we need to be independent while offering support to allies such as Australia. BAEs need to hussle at Barrow.
48 is plenty, we should stop there and double down on Typhoon production. Ramp up project ark royal and start putting drones on QE to supplement 12 F35B onboard.
I agree, MAGA even in best scenarios isn’t just going to disappear not one Republican Congress person has grown a pair so sadly we have to move away and work with friends to fill the big holes that presently we are left with once the US is gone. Guarantee they will try to force Europe into accepting Putin’s conditions or else they will turn off support to us as they did with Ukraine. We will be between a rock and a hard place but most of that leverage can be assuaged before the end of the decade if we work hard. We even have the potential to have our own satellite and intelligence networks if we work on it. Thankfully Europe is gaining its own launch capabilities too well beyond Ariane which I think we will need as I fear even the likes of RocketLab could be stopped from supporting us unless we kowtow completely to Trumps new world order where we are effectively colonies of the big boys.
I think this negative vibe around the US has gone a bit to far, yes there is the Ukraine story and more, but I think the reactions are a bit too emotional, no steps were taken so far to undermine UK security
That loon has absolutely undermined UK security by endorsing Putin; are you really that hard of thinking?
We don’t know yet what is the endgame here, maybe Trump is simply trying to portray himself as a balanced negotiator, if Zelensky would have been smart he cloud have exposed Putin’s bluff instead of playing hard, as for the UK, currently there is not even criticism on it coming from the new administration, the UK has done more than it’s share in NATO and is negotiating on economic agreements separately from the EU
Agreed, we can’t make kneejerk decisions on long term defence projects. US has been an ally for 80+ years through many Presidents. Some of them were more hostile to the UK than Trump has ever been.
How close were we with Japan before GCAP? And yet we are willing to partner with them on a 40+ year fighter system project?
£££££ is a language all of its own.
Yes absolutely….. Let’s just ignore the fact he wants Greenland, Canada and invite Putin ever closer to Europe eh ?
What has Greenland or Canada got to do with UK having F35B? Its all hot air.
Remember when Reagan actually invaded Grenada, a Commonwealth nation and former British colony, with only 3 hours notice? Did that derail any US-UK defence projects?
If you have to ask then I’m afraid I can’t be bothered to explain.
Next.
Ok so i win that argument then.
Next….
True. I think we should be careful how exposed we are to the US or any one partner, but not throw the baby out with the bathwater by binning our F35B project. A go-slow (low rate ordering) would be better, with Typhoon orders continuing alongside for now
Trump is a business man, this his strategy, he throws crazy ideas and measures reactions, instead of words I would focus on actions and instead of looking at all the geopolitics mess I would take a UK centric approach, at the end of the day they will all be friends again and UK will be left with its stupid pride rooted in the days of the British Empire, I am not saying everything is perfect, just don’t overreact
To be honest, I’m not so sure that it has.
If nothing else we should strive to be more independent in our own defence capabilities and industry.
Even if the US after Trump is 100% reliable forevermore after, we should still be more independent and less reliant on the US. If nothing else it would boost UK industry and create potentially thousands more high-skilled jobs in the UK. This would have a positive effect on local economies around the UK and the national economy as a whole.
But it also means we don’t need to go running to the US to beg for additional weapons systems or munitions because we’ve run out within days/weeks of a conflict starting. That we can go to war and sustain it, if it turns out to be a war the US isn’t in favour of.
Sorry but check out American news, he is undermining US security let alone ours and he has only been power 2 months. This is far worse than even my cynical mind foresaw. It will be a miracle if things don’t get far worse and that’s without the factor that the US is already hovering just short of a Constitutional crisis because if he continues to defy the Courts and gets away with it there will be all manner of internal conflict and likely arrests and prohibitive orders. The night of the long knives is only a Supreme Court (mis)judgement away as Trump tries to destroy anyone, judges and politicians alike who fell foul of him. If things go very wrong for him as we are already seeing every country in the World will be to blame in his mind… except Russia perhaps.
Simply put, the F35 is the best there is available to us at present and combined with the Meteor missile is teuly formidable and cannot be surpassed by any other western offeting out there. The Tempest is many years away and a carrier borne/stovl version is a non-starter. We just need to get our fingers out and order a load more F35Bs. whilst remembering that the orange child has a limited time in the White House!
Again you take far too much for granted, the British media apart perhaps for LBC and Tomes tv are almost completely avoiding reporting on events in the US beyond it seems what Trump would be happy with. That in itself is scary there is a potential tinderbox over there Trump and Must are systematically emptying the various Departments of the Govt of any opposition he. O trolls Republicans with an iron rod, turned the Justice Department into his own legal tool and the Democrats beyond Bernie Saunders and a few others seem powerless and disorganised to fight back. Only independent media and MSNBC are really des rising what’s happening and he is literally threatening to arrest them for telling ‘lies’ about him. One Congressman has even launched a Bill saying that anyone who disagrees with Trump is should be declared mentally ill. So yeah ‘he will be gone in four years’ just might not cut it because in one form or another if he gets his way he and MAGA won’t be gone in four years. The mid terms next year as many commentators are beginning to say may be the last chance to stop him and a dictatorship led by him or someone else of his creed… a family member even. Musk for one will be in prison if sanity returns to the US and he is the power behind the throne and currently spending millions in Wisconsin trying to buy judges. They will prevail u less the Courts can stop them and ztrump is already calling g for judges who oppose him to be impeached which thankfully a Supreme Court judge has admonished him for. But with a right wing majority will that Court stand firm?
Personally I’d order another 24 F35-B at Block 4 and put the lot under RN control – but with mixed RN/RAF aviator’s to keep pilot availability numbers up.
72 should give enough for a 20-24 per carrier to deploy simultaneously should the balloon ever go up. With a small reserve.
I’d then retain the Block 1’s for QRA & order another 24+ Typhoon for the RAF to get their teeth in to. The argument over ‘not enough pilots’ is bullshit. It’s that kind of talk that allows bean counters to cut numbers. We need strategic reserve of vehicles, ships and airframes.
Your post I am afraid is simplistic and dare I say somewhat naive.
I don’t know how many times I’ve read this “Let’s keep the T1’s” but I do know they are mostly U/S now. I do agree about replacing them though.
We need enough for the RAF to deploy as well, not just the carriers. In the initial days of conflict the F35s will be critical. Typhoons will be vulnerable until air defences are degraded, for that we need F35.
The other option of not buying more F35s is to buy and stand up an additional squadron of the specialised defence suppression Typhoons Germany uses to support our t2/3’s operating in high threat areas.
Although I agree that given the necessary tight timescale to get Tempest developed , efforts should not be diverted to produce a carrier variant , it is still something I think should be considered.
It would require CAts and Traps to be fitted to the carriers which is already under consideration and given the carriers were built with thatc eventuality in mind. It is not so expensive an option as people may think.
By necessity carriers are going to need to operate further offshore given the advancements in anti ship missiles. Essentially the carriers are going to need to hide, in the ocean.
Given the short range of the F35B something like the US navy stingray drone will need to be operated by the RN. or risk bring the carriers to close to shore. Again necessitating the need for cats and traps.
Buddy storing off another F35 is an utter waste of an airframe.
It should also be remembered that the US navy FAXX is on a par with Tempest for size.
If we did put EMALs on the carriers it in itself creates a problem as the most tried and tested system is the general Atomics on the Ford Class Carriers which brings us neatly back to. Doing business with an increasingly belligerent US.
There’s no reason BAE couldn’t develop their own EMALs. It’d take longer but it’s not outside their capability to do so.
Personally I think we shouldn’t reconfigure the carriers to CATOBAR, though; it’d cost billions and take each carrier out of service for several years to complete the work, leaving us with only one available carrier – sometimes none.
I’m in favour of something like the Stingray drone. Again, no reason why we can’t develop our own and put smaller EMALS on the carriers. TBH, as they keep saying they’re looking for a drone-based solution to carrier AEW, maybe we should design a common drone airframe with two versions: AEW and A2A refuelling.
Or we develop strike drones with a longer range, designed to go ahead of an F-35 to strike targets – or even eventually operate without the F-35, and leave the F-35s for fleet defence?
Oh dear god…. not again.
We worked on our own EMALs until the carriers went STOVL. Cost would be very high and would probably be as gestation heavy as the much greater financed US version. The fact that the nationalistic French are looking to buy the US version should tell you how much of a non starter that now is.