“RAF accused of wasting money on 'outdated' F-35 warplanes“

[Agent K]

A variety of comment and views on this, all with valid points I think.

I know in my experience of operating sub-fleets of aircraft within a single fleet the costs and logistics and planning grows considerably. I think where the US is ordering hundreds if not thousands of the various sub-types, then those separate fleets can be sustained and managed OK with some overall commonality and savings to be made too. I feel with such a comparatively small fleet proposed for the UK, with only 48 commitments I believe made so far, then that to me is too small to maintain and operate sub-fleets, so to me it makes sense, overall to stick with the B.

[johnwayne]

Doesn't the B have a significantly worse payload/range than the A & C models which when combined with unit cost suggests to me a powerful argument for a mixed fleet .

[Leuchars Fan]

Doesn't the B have a significantly worse payload/range than the A & C models which when combined with unit cost suggests to me a powerful argument for a mixed fleet .

Why it sure does Pilgrim! Too many radical types getting involved who believe the RAF should be nothing more than an extension of the Navy and the Army, then there's John Humphrey, he believes the Carriers are a waste. He fears the threat of the CCP and China's Hegemony and ambitions, but alarmingly believes the only way to confront the Red Dragon is through a binary shift in defence posture toward Cyber technology, AI and Space Defence Initiatives.

Personally, I believe these things to be absolutely vital, but certainly not an alternative, all is vital, including the carriers and the RAF still need the F-35A, as a vital asset.

The cyber fixated or carrier fixated believe too easily that there is no other case to made that the Government or the electorate would accept, i.e. more money for defence. So they make a case for concentrated spending on their chosen preference and claim that's all that we need. Very wrong indeed.

LF

[Leuchars Fan]

Purchase the 48 F-35B’s and allocate them to the the FAA, that would be more than enough for three deployable Sqns of 12 a/c each and a fourth training Sqn of 6 a/c, this Sqn could be a joint training unit with the RAF or even USMC.Any future F-35 purchase should be for the A and these allocated to the RAF. Operating a mix fleet doesn’t seem to be an issue for the US, Italy, Japan and South Korea.

Precisely!

LF

[Thunder]

Doesn’t seem to be a problem for Italy, Japan and S Korea to operate two versions of the F-35, so why would it be so different for the UK to do the same. Also isn’t it the case that major servicing of the F-35 is to be done at a multi national level with Italy, Norway, Netherlands as well as the UK all providing hubs.

Nothing wrong with having two carriers it’s just that the final design was wrong for the UK. To save a few £million they elected to go with the ski jump, only for that saving to disappear overnight by having to purchase a more expensive and less capable a/c. At the time everyone was happy, the RN got their boats and the RAF got their direct Harrier replacement, unfortunately both branches of the services were living in the past. The Government and Chiefs of Staff really should’ve looked at and learnt from the one nation that has projected naval air power successfully and continually for the past 70 yrs, just like the French did.

As is always the case in this country short sightedness and personal agendas lead the way.

Problem with the F-35B is it was primarily designed for the USMC way of fighting which is to provide CAS over the beach a short distance from the boat.

[Leuchars Fan]

Doesn’t seem to be a problem for Italy, Japan and S Korea to operate two versions of the F-35, so why would it be so different for the UK to do the same. Also isn’t it the case that major servicing of the F-35 is to be done at a multi national level with Italy, Norway, Netherlands as well as the UK all providing hubs.

Nothing wrong with having two carriers it’s just that the final design was wrong for the UK. To save a few £million they elected to go with the ski jump, only for that saving to disappear overnight by having to purchase a more expensive and less capable a/c. At the time everyone was happy, the RN got their boats and the RAF got their direct Harrier replacement, unfortunately both branches of the services were living in the past. The Government and Chiefs of Staff really should’ve looked at and learnt from the one nation that has projected naval air power successfully and continually for the past 70 yrs, just like the French did.

As is always the case in this country short sightedness and personal agendas lead the way.

Problem with the F-35B is it was primarily designed for the USMC way of fighting which is to provide CAS over the beach a short distance from the boat.

Precisely again!

LF

[paddyboy]

Thunder:

[Sparts99]

"Problem with the F-35B is it was primarily designed for the USMC way of fighting which is to provide CAS over the beach a short distance from the boat." That hadn't occurred to me, probably the most telling comment I've ever seen or heard about the unsuitability of the B for UK operations given our lack of a support fleet for the carriers.

[Reach1985]

"Problem with the F-35B is it was primarily designed for the USMC way of fighting which is to provide CAS over the beach a short distance from the boat." That hadn't occurred to me, probably the most telling comment I've ever seen or heard about the unsuitability of the B for UK operations given our lack of a support fleet for the carriers.

And realistically how many amphibious landings / invasions are we going to see in the next 20-30 years? I’d hazard a rough guess at zero. I think the USMC might be preparing for a war scenario that is many years out of date....

[TARGET]

Jn my view the two models complement one another quite well.That is providing we have enough B models to fit out the Navy. One potential issue not mentioned so far (unless i have missed it ) is IFR. We dont currently have a capability to refuel the A version.

[Canberra TT.18]

[*]

"Problem with the F-35B is it was primarily designed for the USMC way of fighting which is to provide CAS over the beach a short distance from the boat." That hadn't occurred to me, probably the most telling comment I've ever seen or heard about the unsuitability of the B for UK operations given our lack of a support fleet for the carriers.

And realistically how many amphibious landings / invasions are we going to see in the next 20-30 years? I’d hazard a rough guess at zero. I think the USMC might be preparing for a war scenario that is many years out of date....

USMC is rethinking their way of fighting and structure which could mean fewer Lightning Bs and more Cs and other Squadron structure.
Also fewer CH-53K eg.

Jn my view the two models complement one another quite well.That is providing we have enough B models to fit out the Navy. One potential issue not mentioned so far (unless i have missed it ) is IFR. We dont currently have a capability to refuel the A version.

With the B and C equipped with other system I wonder how big a problem this is to fit to an A. There is some community between the A, B & C
Maybe cheaper then rebuilding the tankers with a boom.

[Thunder]

Surely rather than trying to make yet another hybrid jet and not to mention the costs associated with doing so, it would make more sense just to buy the 'C' version or outfit our tanker with boom, at least that technology is already out there and flying successfully.

[Canberra TT.18]

Surely rather than trying to make yet another hybrid jet and not to mention the costs associated with doing so, it would make more sense just to buy the 'C' version or outfit our tanker with boom, at least that technology is already out there and flying successfully.

Well Britain has a long tradition with Britinishing (is this the right word ?) version of well known and working aircraft. (Phantom, C-130K, Chinook HC.3 Apache AH.1 Tucano. To name a few) So there is a tradition.
Even the Voyagers are different to the A330MRTT used by other countries

[Thunder]

and there lies the problem, having to be unique from others costs a lot more money for an aircraft not much better and in some cases inferior.

[Hawkwind26]

And realistically how many amphibious landings / invasions are we going to see in the next 20-30 years? I’d hazard a rough guess at zero. I think the USMC might be preparing for a war scenario that is many years out of date....
[/quote]

Why then has China built and is building several of the largest amphibious assault ships ( Type 075 ) ever seen? It seems a concept that they believe is required for future warfare. Probably for the South China Sea Islands scenario, but nevertheless a huge multi role commitment and flexible capability.

Probably discussed elsewhere but my understanding was that the "A" version was primarily for QRA and to eventually replace the Eurofighter, hence having two versions.

[Leuchars Fan]

and there lies the problem, having to be unique from others costs a lot more money for an aircraft not much better and in some cases inferior.

This certainly was the case but not the intention with the F-4M and F-4K. However, their low level performance was better.

LF

[Malcolm]

With the B and C equipped with other system I wonder how big a problem this is to fit to an A. There is some community between the A, B & C

The space required for the probe is apparently used for something else in the F-35A. So you need to re-locate that, add the probe, pipework and delete the current recepticle. Sounding like an F-35D now. This is one of the reasons the Canadians went cold on the F-35A - they were apparently quoted something like $5bn in development costs, although they wanted a drag chute too. Wonder how much the Noggies had to pay for their drag chutes? Of course it's possible, but changing anything will cost mega-bucks.

My view is we should spend the money on converting one of the carriers to angled flight deck and cat/trap at it's first re-fit. Leave the ski jump. That way the RAF/RN can operate F35C (plus F-18, Rafale, Hawkeye) from both land and sea, and the F-35B's are not 'wasted'. By the time HMS QE comes out of refit it'll be 2035, and the F-35B's will be 20 years old and ready for the scrap yard anyway.

Maybe cheaper then rebuilding the tankers with a boom.

The RAF/MOD don't own the Voyagers - Airtanker do. Wikipedia says the Airtanker contract is for 27 years, and I think started in 2008. So the RAF won't be ordering new/additional tankers till 2035 ish. Of course the MOD/RAF could attempt to negotiate a modification/update to the Airtanker contract to include a Boom on some of the fleet, but I suspect that will also be mega-bucks since Airtanker know they are sole source till 2035.

I'm also not comfortable with the idea of a single Voyager dragging F-35As over the Atlantic. Any problems with the boom and it's a long swim for the F35A pilots. At least with the hose/drogue the Voyager has 2/3 of those so it's not critical if one fails. I suspect you'd want at least 2 tankers to cover a boom fighter drag.

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.

[Finty]

[*]

"Problem with the F-35B is it was primarily designed for the USMC way of fighting which is to provide CAS over the beach a short distance from the boat." That hadn't occurred to me, probably the most telling comment I've ever seen or heard about the unsuitability of the B for UK operations given our lack of a support fleet for the carriers.

And realistically how many amphibious landings / invasions are we going to see in the next 20-30 years? I’d hazard a rough guess at zero. I think the USMC might be preparing for a war scenario that is many years out of date....

USMC is rethinking their way of fighting and structure which could mean fewer Lightning Bs and more Cs and other Squadron structure.
Also fewer CH-53K eg.

Interesting isn’t it, they’re looking at reducing the number of F35Bs per squadron from 16 to 10.

[Canberra TT.18]

With the B and C equipped with other system I wonder how big a problem this is to fit to an A. There is some community between the A, B & C

The space required for the probe is apparently used for something else in the F-35A. So you need to re-locate that, add the probe, pipework and delete the current recepticle. Sounding like an F-35D now. This is one of the reasons the Canadians went cold on the F-35A - they were apparently quoted something like $5bn in development costs, although they wanted a drag chute too. Wonder how much the Noggies had to pay for their drag chutes? Of course it's possible, but changing anything will cost mega-bucks.

My view is we should spend the money on converting one of the carriers to angled flight deck and cat/trap at it's first re-fit. Leave the ski jump. That way the RAF/RN can operate F35C (plus F-18, Rafale, Hawkeye) from both land and sea, and the F-35B's are not 'wasted'. By the time HMS QE comes out of refit it'll be 2035, and the F-35B's will be 20 years old and ready for the scrap yard anyway.

Maybe cheaper then rebuilding the tankers with a boom.

The RAF/MOD don't own the Voyagers - Airtanker do. Wikipedia says the Airtanker contract is for 27 years, and I think started in 2008. So the RAF won't be ordering new/additional tankers till 2035 ish. Of course the MOD/RAF could attempt to negotiate a modification/update to the Airtanker contract to include a Boom on some of the fleet, but I suspect that will also be mega-bucks since Airtanker know they are sole source till 2035.

I'm also not comfortable with the idea of a single Voyager dragging F-35As over the Atlantic. Any problems with the boom and it's a long swim for the F35A pilots. At least with the hose/drogue the Voyager has 2/3 of those so it's not critical if one fails. I suspect you'd want at least 2 tankers to cover a boom fighter drag.

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.

That's why I placed the smilies.

Yes every unique modification will cost zillions of dollars/euro/pounds and as airplane are in service for ever (it looks) it harder will cost zillions extra to maintain this sub version.

The Dutch have ordered 20 CH-47F (including 6 more or less rebuilds) equal to the USArmy ones, as the original F Dutch versions were different and more expensive. It is a learning process is seems. They Original F are only some 8 years old .

It is all about money and (politics) logic.
Buy what you need and can afford also in the long run.

[Snoop 95]

Herewith a comprehensive assessment of F35b versus F35A for future RAF:
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/a-and-b ... -35-force/