F35 in the news again

Re: F35 in the news again

Postby Ouragan on Tue 04 Dec 2018, 1:46 pm

Hmm, both carriers with 70 aircraft on each. One word, gents.

Manpower. As in, where from?
User avatar
Ouragan

Re: F35 in the news again

Postby ericbee123 on Tue 04 Dec 2018, 2:47 pm

Ouragan wrote:Hmm, both carriers with 70 aircraft on each. One word, gents.

Manpower. As in, where from?


In a war requiring us to field 2 carriers with 70 F35Bs on both, then the F35Bs and the manpower would come from the USMC !!

We will never deploy more than 20 on one carrier at any one time. We won’t have enough FJ to put a high percentage of them on a floating target. No matter how well protected.

If we are in a war big enough for us to need 140 F35Bs at sea, then we would be better served sending F35s and Typhoons to remote bases as having them all parked at 2 airfields or on 2 big ships only needs 4 decent sized warheads ( in the general vicinity ) to take out your entire FJ fleet.
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 austinp on Tue 04 Dec 2018, 2:51 pm

Are both carriers going to be deployed at the same time, with full air wings?? Probably not I guess.

So, a split buy makes sense.

As others have pointed out, the "A" has better legs and loadout.

But I say, the RAF should get the "C" version, just to annoy the Navy a bit more ;-)

P.S. I do support all of our armed forces, there should none of this infighting, #oneteam
austinp

Re: F35 in the news again

Postby ericbee123 on Tue 04 Dec 2018, 3:04 pm

The C is a good shout as it future proofs the carriers as well.

If in the future if either (or both of them) goes Cat and Trap then the RAF and RN would be able to fly their Bs and Cs off them.
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 Brevet Cable on Tue 04 Dec 2018, 3:05 pm

ericbee123 wrote:We will never deploy more than 20 on one carrier at any one time. We won’t have enough FJ to put a high percentage of them on a floating target. No matter how well protected.

If we are in a war big enough for us to need 140 F35Bs at sea, then we would be better served sending F35s and Typhoons to remote bases as having them all parked at 2 airfields or on 2 big ships only needs 4 decent sized warheads ( in the general vicinity ) to take out your entire FJ fleet.

Psst.....
Airfields are just as vulnerable as carriers....probably more so given what your average CBG/CSG consists of & the fact that CBG/CSGs move.
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 FarnboroJohn on Tue 04 Dec 2018, 3:32 pm

ericbee123 wrote:
Ouragan wrote:Hmm, both carriers with 70 aircraft on each. One word, gents.

Manpower. As in, where from?


In a war requiring us to field 2 carriers with 70 F35Bs on both, then the F35Bs and the manpower would come from the USMC !!

We will never deploy more than 20 on one carrier at any one time. We won’t have enough FJ to put a high percentage of them on a floating target. No matter how well protected.

If we are in a war big enough for us to need 140 F35Bs at sea, then we would be better served sending F35s and Typhoons to remote bases as having them all parked at 2 airfields or on 2 big ships only needs 4 decent sized warheads ( in the general vicinity ) to take out your entire FJ fleet.


So lets move our jets from the two well-defended bases to a number of places, so we have to defend all of those against not necessarily a couple of warheads but a couple of Hiluxes with RPGs or mortars.... and split our ground crews and the handling equipment.... and move the resupply weapons to new (unbuilt) bomb dumps and more complex weapon handling facilities we don't have, together with their spares and tools and then organise the logistics to keep resupplying all these remote locations, which will require far more - oh, yes: manpower.....

Where from?
FarnboroJohn

Re: F35 in the news again

Postby Tmyers123 on Tue 04 Dec 2018, 4:10 pm

austinp wrote:Are both carriers going to be deployed at the same time, with full air wings?? Probably not I guess.

So, a split buy makes sense.

As others have pointed out, the "A" has better legs and loadout.

But I say, the RAF should get the "C" version, just to annoy the Navy a bit more ;-)

P.S. I do support all of our armed forces, there should none of this infighting, #oneteam


Agreed, the F-35C makes more sense than the F-35A if there is a split buy, as the problem of AAR is solved. And if the RAF top brass do not like the idea of operating a naval fighter, they should just learn to suck it up - because after all, the RCAF, Ejercito Del Aire, Swiss Air Force, Finnish Air Force etc. don’t seem to have a problem with operating Hornets.
User avatar
Tmyers123

Re: F35 in the news again

Postby ericbee123 on Tue 04 Dec 2018, 4:35 pm

FarnboroJohn wrote:
ericbee123 wrote:
Ouragan wrote:Hmm, both carriers with 70 aircraft on each. One word, gents.

Manpower. As in, where from?


In a war requiring us to field 2 carriers with 70 F35Bs on both, then the F35Bs and the manpower would come from the USMC !!

We will never deploy more than 20 on one carrier at any one time. We won’t have enough FJ to put a high percentage of them on a floating target. No matter how well protected.

If we are in a war big enough for us to need 140 F35Bs at sea, then we would be better served sending F35s and Typhoons to remote bases as having them all parked at 2 airfields or on 2 big ships only needs 4 decent sized warheads ( in the general vicinity ) to take out your entire FJ fleet.


So lets move our jets from the two well-defended bases to a number of places, so we have to defend all of those against not necessarily a couple of warheads but a couple of Hiluxes with RPGs or mortars.... and split our ground crews and the handling equipment.... and move the resupply weapons to new (unbuilt) bomb dumps and more complex weapon handling facilities we don't have, together with their spares and tools and then organise the logistics to keep resupplying all these remote locations, which will require far more - oh, yes: manpower.....

Where from?


No idea. Would be the least of my worries if we were in a war big enough for us to move our entire F35B force to sea on 2 carriers then we are in big trouble and it won’t be long before there are no land bases or ships left.

I don’t think we will ever be in a war big enough for us to get the “doomsday effect” of having to commit our entire FJ fleet. So it’s all irrrlevant.

I don’t believe we need more than 40 carrier capable F35s at any time in the foreseeable future against any realistic enemy that we choose to fight with.
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 Brevet Cable on Tue 04 Dec 2018, 4:56 pm

Tmyers123 wrote:And if the RAF top brass do not like the idea of operating a naval fighter, they should just learn to suck it up - because after all, the RCAF, Ejercito Del Aire, Swiss Air Force, Finnish Air Force etc. don’t seem to have a problem with operating Hornets.

Simple solution, stick to the 'B' model but change the name.
The RAF can have the Lightning, the RN can have the Sea Lightning....problem solved.
After all, they both managed to use Harriers, Phantoms, Vampires, Venoms, Spitfires, Hurricanes, Buccaneers & Hornets ( and probably quite a few more, but those are just the ones I recall )
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 Burleysway on Thu 10 Jan 2019, 9:18 am

New RAF jet 'combat ready' in face of resurgent Russia threat

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/0 ... ia-threat/

The RAF's new stealth jet is expected to be declared ready for combat in time to counter the “resurgent Russian threat”.

Gavin Williamson, the Defence Secretary, is thought to say today that the F-35B Lightning, the latest addition to the RAF’s fighter jet fleet, is capable of launching combat missions.

Details of what the ‘Initial Operating Capability’ (IOC) entails is expected to be announced by the Secretary of State later today at RAF Marham, Norfolk, the home to the F-35s and the Tornado, the RAF’s workhorse since the 1970s.

The Tornado will be retired from service in 2019 after four decades of active service, during which time it has provided critical air power in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Balkans and wider afield.

It is anticipated that Mr Williamson will also announce a significant enhancement to the RAF’s fleet of Typhoon fighter jets, a move welcomed by Defence experts.
User avatar
Burleysway

Re: F35 in the news again

Postby Brevet Cable on Tue 12 Feb 2019, 6:39 pm

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-47212553
A £500m contract has been awarded to an aircraft repair hub in Flintshire by the US Department of Defense.

MoD Sealand will maintain, repair, overhaul and upgrade hundreds of F-35 fighter jet systems.

In 2016, the UK was chosen by the F-35 Program Office to be a global repair hub to maintain the aircraft.

The assignment is expected to begin in 2020 and support hundreds of high-tech jobs.
Unofficial forum brauer und winzer
Not an enthusiast or a spotter
trollpikken fforwm swyddogol
User avatar
Brevet Cable

Previous

Return to Aviation Waffle

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests