“RAF accused of wasting money on 'outdated' F-35 warplanes“

[POL]

One thing I've not got my head around is how the RAF is 'allowed' to use USAF KC-135's to refuel it's RC-135's. I would have thought that would breach the Airtanker contract, so either Airtanker haven't realised yet, or an exemption has already been negotiated.

An exception existed from day one of the Airtanker contract. If Airtanker cannot provide the service, the MOD can go elsewhere with no penalty.

Thus boom refuelling, helicopter refuelling, etc are exempt from the Airtanker contract.

[Agent K]

The One thing I've not got my head around is how the RAF is 'allowed' to use USAF KC-135's to refuel it's RC-135's. I would have thought that would breach the Airtanker contract, so either Airtanker haven't realised yet, or an exemption has already been negotiated.

Have you seen and read the Airtanker contract, all clauses and change notices to be able to state this? I’d have assumed (and written myself if I’d done this) clauses to ensure flexibility of operation especially on Ops.

I cannot think for one bit anybody RFI/RFP’ing and writing a contract would not from day one incorporate operationally flexibility and needs and appropriate clauses to ensure the requirements are met.

I suspect also that Airtanker would be a step ahead of spotters and know exactly what is happening.....

[Cranberry]

If you dig through the many pages on Pprune you'll find something like Airtanker having the monopoly on all non-operational refuelling (i.e. it would have to provide any non-operational boom services if the RAF ever gets any) but it doesn't have a monopoly for refuelling UK aircraft on operations. I.e. an RAF RC-135 flying a mission to the Baltic is allowed USAF fuel, an RAF RC-135 flying to the US for maintenance isn't. This topic was raised a while back when A400M refuelling pods were being touted as was an air refuelling variant of the BAe-146 - both non-starters.

[Finty]

More news about Blighty’s lightnings, unfortunately from the heap of cack that is MailOnline. Basically regards not buying as many as 138 which isn’t really that surprising.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailym ... -jets.html

Britain could buy only half of its target of F-35 Lightning II fighter jets and spend the extra cash on a futuristic plane that will control a swarm of drones.

Plans for 138 jets could be scrapped but the UK has agreed to buy 48 by the end of 2025 as part of a £9.1billion deal.

Military funding will instead be directed towards the UK-led Tempest jet - which is expected to make it into production by 2035... But the Commons defence committee has since said the decision was taken 'following some hesitation' and Britain is not contractually obliged to buy any more than 48.

A foreign police, defence and security integrated review will finish in November.

A defence source told the newspaper: 'The guiding principle of the review is to ask ourselves what the threat it, and whether we have the capability to meet it... Military chiefs may decide on a final figure of 70 F-35s, which one expert said would 'make sense' because 60 could be in use while ten were kept back to act as back-ups in case of damage or malfunction.

[Snoop 95]

Same story in UK Defence Journal quoting Times exclusive: https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/uk-coul ... 0-percent/

Interesting caveat in the very last para advising taking all that is said in it 'with a pinch of salt'.

[jeallen01]

FWIW: any county has to deal with BOTH the current/immediate future AND the "further out in the future in the future" threats - thus, how has the UK defence "leadership" (both military and government!) "concluded" that "TEMPEST" is the way forward and a potential consequent reduction in F-35 acquisitions is neccesary?

By comparison, The US has decided to buy a "reasonable number" of "improved" versions (thus, IIRC, the F-15 EX) of existing designs to fill the gap between 4th Gen and "5th/6th" Gen capability.

Thus, what should the UK do now, IN REALITY, bearing in mind the current economic situation??

IMHO, a "few" "newer Gen" Typhoons (or F15's, FA-18 E/F. or NEXT GEN Gripens, Rafales, etc., etc.,?) might not be bad idea.

[Agent K]

FWIW: any county has to deal with BOTH the current/immediate future AND the "further out in the future in the future" threats - thus, how has the UK defence "leadership" (both military and government!) "concluded" that "TEMPEST" is the way forward and a potential consequent reduction in F-35 acquisitions is neccesary?

By comparison, The US has decided to buy a "reasonable number" of "improved" versions (thus, IIRC, the F-15 EX) of existing designs to fill the gap between 4th Gen and "5th/6th" Gen capability.

Thus, what should the UK do now, IN REALITY, bearing in mind the current economic situation??

IMHO, a "few" "newer Gen" Typhoons (or F15's, FA-18 E/F. or NEXT GEN Gripens, Rafales, etc., etc.,?) might not be bad idea.

Introducing a new fleet type and the associated logistics and infrastructure wouldn't fit the economic needs and would increase costs!

[Vulcanone]

Well as Germany, is set on retiring its Tranche 1 Typhoons and replacing them (and maybe) Tornado with more Tranches 3s....

Maybe the line might stay open long enough. As once the Kuwaiti and Qatari jets are built they haven't got much else currently

[jeallen01]

..
Introducing a new fleet type and the associated logistics and infrastructure wouldn't fit the economic needs and would increase costs!

Maybe some Spitfires? Well, there is still a little of the relevant "logistics and infrastructure" for those!

[jeallen01]

Well as Germany, is set on retiring its Tranche 1 Typhoons and replacing them (and maybe) Tornado with more Tranches 3s....

Maybe the line might stay open long enough. As once the Kuwaiti and Qatari jets are built they haven't got much else currently

Would agree with that!

[Canberra TT.18]

To me Tempest is just another 5 generation aircraft. Not the leap to 6 generation. The USA (I think the western leading country concerning fighter aircraft development) is only just starting its 6 generation development. So why not keep the Lighting along with 4+ gen. Typhoons.
Or is the only economic benefit that Tempest is a 'locally' developed aircraft with potential export chances.

And how does this economic scale works ? Nobody could develop a 5th generation aircraft on it own anymore because of the cost. Look at F-35's and all its partner countries on different levels. And now all of a sudden countries can develop their own 6th generation aircraft.

[Finty]

Italy and Sweden are currently involved with Tempest. Quite why the Germans and French can’t collaborate on Tempest or UK/Italy/Sweden can’t join the Germans and French with FCAS isn’t entirely clear.

[Snoop 95]

Italy and Sweden are currently involved with Tempest. Quite why the Germans and French can’t collaborate on Tempest or UK/Italy/Sweden can’t join the Germans and French with FCAS isn’t entirely clear.

Politics! Same reason the French went with Rafale and not Eurofighter.

[Richard B]

Countries we have sold Tornado and Typhoon too, will be future customers for designs like the Tempest. So as long as we keep these countries happy they are future export customers. If after the typhoon production ends, so does our industry and we are reliant on other nations.