F35 in the news again


Re: F35 in the news again

Postby boff180 on Sun 02 Dec 2018, 12:42 pm

A split buy has always been on the cards to satisfy our total 138 commitment, it also makes sense. I'm a little surprised that the first batch of 48 may also be split however.
User avatar
boff180
UKAR Staff

Re: F35 in the news again

Postby vulcan558 on Sun 02 Dec 2018, 3:25 pm

boff180 wrote:A split buy has always been on the cards to satisfy our total 138 commitment, it also makes sense. I'm a little surprised that the first batch of 48 may also be split however.

Suspect that could be the case, once the Tornado as gone early next year, the RAF will be wanting the A variant I think.just the hurdle of air to air refueling that model though.

The B was never going to be the long range bomb truck the RAF need, a small fleet of B2's is what they need and become a global power mission outfit.

Can see the logic with the F35A, and the fact that Lakenheath will be a big user so maintenance could be shared.
Be worth turning Mildenhall when it shuts into an F35 service hub.
Last edited by vulcan558 on Sun 02 Dec 2018, 4:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
vulcan558

Re: F35 in the news again

Postby Tmyers123 on Sun 02 Dec 2018, 3:30 pm

vulcan558 wrote:Suspect that could bebthe case, once the Tornado as gone early next year, the RAF will be wanting the A variant I think.just the hurdle of air to air refueling that model though.

The B was never going to be the long range bomb truck the RAF need, a small fleet of B2's is what they need and become a global power mission outfit.

Can see the logic with the F35A, and the fact that Lakenheath will be a big user so maintenance could be shared.
Be worth turning Mildenhall when it shuts into an F35 service hub.


What planet are you on? :grin:
User avatar
Tmyers123

Re: F35 in the news again

Postby vulcan558 on Sun 02 Dec 2018, 4:00 pm

Tmyers123 wrote:
vulcan558 wrote:Suspect that could bebthe case, once the Tornado as gone early next year, the RAF will be wanting the A variant I think.just the hurdle of air to air refueling that model though.

The B was never going to be the long range bomb truck the RAF need, a small fleet of B2's is what they need and become a global power mission outfit.

Can see the logic with the F35A, and the fact that Lakenheath will be a big user so maintenance could be shared.
Be worth turning Mildenhall when it shuts into an F35 service hub.


What planet are you on? :grin:

Why not, the 2 carriers cost £5billion each, add the 48 F35B's the manpower to operate them and maintenance just
To project some golbal power.your looking at 15 billion plus.
A small fleet of say 6 B2's would have been cheaper and hit anywhere on the planet in hours.
When needed,
Carrier can be a week away, and a sitting duck with large loss of life and cost,
The carriers are a joke,
Another option in stead of the £15billion carriers should have been spent on a bigger fleet of cruise missle launch destroyers or frigate.
vulcan558

Re: F35 in the news again

Postby Brevet Cable on Sun 02 Dec 2018, 4:36 pm

:dizzy:
Unofficial forum brauer und winzer
Not an enthusiast or a spotter
trollpikken fforwm swyddogol
User avatar
Brevet Cable

Re: F35 in the news again

Postby Binbrook 01 on Sun 02 Dec 2018, 5:03 pm

Perhaps you can persuade Northrop Grumman to restart production....


Alas I suspect they have other plans, Not least the B-21. And I suspect you have as much chance of that being exported as the UK buying Unicorns
Binbrook 01

Re: F35 in the news again

Postby disgruntled on Sun 02 Dec 2018, 5:34 pm

Sorry Vulcan but that is a serious misunderstanding of the term Global Power in this modern age. The power projection of an aircraft carrier coming into a foreign port and engaging with the high and mighty of that country is far more far reaching than a small squadron of bombers which realistically are only good for creating smoking holes in the ground.
disgruntled

Re: F35 in the news again

Postby vulcan558 on Sun 02 Dec 2018, 6:16 pm

disgruntled wrote:Sorry Vulcan but that is a serious misunderstanding of the term Global Power in this modern age. The power projection of an aircraft carrier coming into a foreign port and engaging with the high and mighty of that country is far more far reaching than a small squadron of bombers which realistically are only good for creating smoking holes in the ground.

Thought they did that via Airports. Like airforce one.
I've never seen a president arrive in this country via a Carrier or any ship to be honest.
vulcan558

Re: F35 in the news again

Postby CJS on Sun 02 Dec 2018, 6:52 pm

I don't recall seeing one arrive in a B-2 either.

Not sure what a leader's mode of transport has to do with your original post?

Plus you're suggesting a fleet of 6, just under a third of the US fleet size. If we were going to get them, then a proportional amount would probably be about 0.3 of one aircraft.

It's extremely nonsensical.
"Forewarned is forearmed"
How do you know I didn't?
User avatar
CJS

Re: F35 in the news again

Postby The Baron on Sun 02 Dec 2018, 8:50 pm

vulcan558 wrote:The B was never going to be the long range bomb truck the RAF need, a small fleet of B2's is what they need and become a global power mission outfit.


I saw almost the exact same quote on FB and thought to myself "Here's an opinion from somebody that knows nothing".
Loafer for Mr. Da Vinci.
User avatar
The Baron

Re: F35 in the news again

Postby harkins on Mon 03 Dec 2018, 8:36 am

I'm aware my opinion is meaningless as I have no real knowledge of any of this, but I really would have thought it would have been better to let the Royal Navy have enough F-35B for 2 FAA squadrons and let the RAF have the rest as F-35As after eeking another twelve months or so out of the Tornado fleet.

Presumably we simply can't (or won't) pay for that and have lumbered the RAF with a stealthy but under-powered aircraft and left the RN looking like they're being forced to share the weapon for their new super carriers with a younger brother that won't share nicely. Both services must be very disappointed and frustrated by this arrangement.

It's sometimes painful watching the UK try to continue being a major global military power whilst clearly not being able to afford it. Every time we get some new kit it's a given that we're losing something else simultaneously and usually getting fewer of the new thing.

I wonder how much money the MOD are losing by having to include a brigade (77 Brigade?) that is basically a bunch of internet trolls? Surely that should come out of some other budget (Ministry of Propaganda?) Weird stuff like that and pensions must add up to sharing weapons between the RAF and RN. Maybe they could retire the Army's tanks and tell them to share the F-35 as well.

Rant over.
User avatar
harkins

Re: F35 in the news again

Postby disgruntled on Mon 03 Dec 2018, 8:42 am

Sorry Vulcan you misinterpreted my point. My fault, maybe I should have been clearer.
The carrier is obviously not the mode of transport in which a head of state arrives. What it does is represents the country and provides a statement of Global Power onboard which friendships, alliances and indeed business can then be carried out and maintained. An aircraft carrier is so much more than a warship and its ability to project GB PLC is far greater than (half) a squadron of bombers could. It has the ability to project “soft power” which is so much more useful and cost effective. So it turns of value for money (bang for your buck if you like) the investments in the QE class will give a far greater yield than any stealthy smoking crater maker could ever bring.
disgruntled

Re: F35 in the news again

Postby maltwoser on Mon 03 Dec 2018, 10:47 am

I'd love to see a comparison of the through-life support costs for a mixed fleet. From what I've read there's very little commonality. It's the same reason we didn't chop half of the Harrier fleet and half of the Tornado fleet. Having fewer types is a huge cost saving.
User avatar
maltwoser

Re: F35 in the news again

Postby harkins on Mon 03 Dec 2018, 11:05 am

That sounds like cost saving is far more important than having a balanced and effective set of weapon platforms at our disposal. Weird how the Americans don't seem to have foisted one type on their three services operating the F-35. Surely they'd have saved an incredible amount if they'd developed and used on the B version and with the B apparently being perfectly suitable for any type of mission it seems there isn't really any point to the A or C. They could even have pooled all their aircraft and closed a few Navy and Marine Corps airfields. They could then buy more B-21s.
User avatar
harkins

Re: F35 in the news again

Postby ericbee123 on Mon 03 Dec 2018, 12:53 pm

Two of main arguments against the A are :

1. They don’t have a probe for refuelling.

2. They have some things in common with the B model but a lot of major items are unique to A. So maintenance could be a problem.

Addressing them in turn.

1. Surely the Airseeker, Poseidon , C17 and the F35A ( if we buy some ) rely on boom refuelling. If we believe that we are also going to buy the Wedgetail, then with the numbers of aircraft the RAF will have eventually have, they will end up with parity ( or maybe even more ) probe refuelled aircraft to hose and drouge refuelled aircraft. It’s surely a matter of WHEN not IF we get a probe refuelling capability in the future.

2. It’s my understanding that apart from changing tyres, replacing the odd engine and the replacement of fuses, most of the larger maintenance and servicing of all models of F35 will be done by Boeing (in Turkey or Italy ?). So A or B shouldn’t make a difference and it will probably cost less to pay Boeing to service a single engined A model.
Disclaimer-I have spell/grammar checked this post, it may still contain mistakes that might cause offence.
User avatar
ericbee123

Re: F35 in the news again

Postby Finningley Boy on Mon 03 Dec 2018, 1:06 pm

The Italians are going for As for the Air Force and Bs for their Navy. I'd have thought refuelling functions aside, we should naturally do the same. High time the RN stopped thinking themselves the more prominent service where combat air power is concerned. Perhaps the first 48, all Bs, should end up entirely for the Navy while the remaining 90, should all be As for the RAF. I'd have thought that would be a sensible plane and give the Navy far greater air power, autonomously, than at anytime since the end of the Second World War.

FB :biggrin:
I have danced the skies on laughter-silvered wings!
Finningley Boy

Re: F35 in the news again

Postby harkins on Mon 03 Dec 2018, 1:31 pm

I'm glad at least someone else sees the same logic as me (whether right or wrong). And ericbee123 points out that the servicing costs of two versions likely isn't so great as to be worth the cost of accepting a compromise for the RAF and RN.

I have no personal leaning toward the RAF or Navy, so I don't really see one as getting the upper hand over the other. I see that they're both being messed with by the MOD/Government.
User avatar
harkins

Re: F35 in the news again

Postby Ouragan on Mon 03 Dec 2018, 2:25 pm

Perhaps the answer is to treat them as two separate fleets. Until Joint Force Harrier came along the only thing FA.2s and GR.7/9s had in common was the name. In any case I really don't see why we need to have 138 carrier-capable aircraft when we will only ever to be able to embark 24 of them at any one time.
User avatar
Ouragan

Re: F35 in the news again

Postby vulcan558 on Mon 03 Dec 2018, 3:30 pm

Lakenheath will be a large F35A base in a few years. Most of our close neighbors are and will be with the F35A. So a central serviceing hub will prove cheaper.
vulcan558

Re: F35 in the news again

Postby harkins on Mon 03 Dec 2018, 4:03 pm

Quite a bit of simple logic being posted here. All sounds like it makes great sense and yet UK military procurement has yet again come up with something else :dizzy:
User avatar
harkins

Re: F35 in the news again

Postby Joe Spares on Mon 03 Dec 2018, 4:38 pm

vulcan558 wrote:Lakenheath will be a large F35A base in a few years. Most of our close neighbors are and will be with the F35A. So a central serviceing hub will prove cheaper.

US ones will be serviced in the USA like the F-15 is, and as already pointed out once in this thread already, European ones are to be serviced in Italy and Turkey or european maintainance hub if u want... that is written into in the contract for their puchase...
Joe Spares

Re: F35 in the news again

Postby FarnboroJohn on Mon 03 Dec 2018, 4:43 pm

Ouragan wrote:Perhaps the answer is to treat them as two separate fleets. Until Joint Force Harrier came along the only thing FA.2s and GR.7/9s had in common was the name. In any case I really don't see why we need to have 138 carrier-capable aircraft when we will only ever to be able to embark 24 of them at any one time.


"The vessels are expected to be capable of carrying forty aircraft, a maximum of thirty-six F-35s and four helicopters,[68] however Commodore Jerry Kyd has stated that it could carry up to 70 F-35Bs.[69] The 2010 SDSR anticipated the routine peacetime deployment of twelve F-35Bs, rising to a surge force of 24 F-35Bs and a number of helicopters." - Wikipedia (couldn't be bothered to check the references).

Two carriers (I doubt they'll often run both at once, whatever they say, but surging two decks must be an option) = reasonably easy to do 70 jets embarked and could do more potentially, accepting some would always be on the roof. Do not confuse peacetime habit and wartime need.
FarnboroJohn

Re: F35 in the news again

Postby ericbee123 on Mon 03 Dec 2018, 5:49 pm

If we had 140 F35B and we were at war and we had both QE and POW available ( all massive IFs). I’m still not sure we would want up to 70 F35B on both and effectively half of our entire FJ fleet on two rather large floating targets in an ocean somewhere.

I think wartime planning ( if we had both available at the same time ) is for one of them ( QE ) to configure for Carrier/Strike and the other (POW) to configure as Amphibious Assault/Support. With the flexibility of either or both switching roles as needed.

Although thinking about it F35B for the RAF might give us more options for remote deployment of our fighter force to shorter runways with their short take off and short landing capability. As well as a surge replacement if needed for the QE carriers.
Disclaimer-I have spell/grammar checked this post, it may still contain mistakes that might cause offence.
User avatar
ericbee123

Re: F35 in the news again

Postby Tmyers123 on Mon 03 Dec 2018, 5:52 pm

ericbee123 wrote:I’m still not sure we would want up to 70 F35B on both and effectively half of our entire FJ fleet on two rather large floating targets in an ocean somewhere.


But surrounded by RN escorts and most likely other NATO vessels.
User avatar
Tmyers123

Next

Return to Aviation Waffle

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot], svas_volunteer and 22 guests