Yea I was on the Foxtrot Alpha blog and somebody was ranting in one of the comments there. Idjits.
Royal Air Force (RAF-UK) Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter Jambo_100
- Start date
Because they can't fly the As from the carriers and have to set up a separate sub supply chain. Also with only B's all RAF pilots on F35s will be current on the aircraft and its abilities.
Bit of an eye opener here in the defence daily mailout, in which they report, without comment, that two newspapers are carrying stories about an intent for the UK to purchase a ground based ABM system.
https://modmedia.blog.gov.uk/2015/11/24/defence-in-the-media-24-november-2015/
Not sure where it belongs but as such a system might be RAF staffed, I'll plump for this thread.
https://modmedia.blog.gov.uk/2015/11/24/defence-in-the-media-24-november-2015/
Not sure where it belongs but as such a system might be RAF staffed, I'll plump for this thread.
David Cameron come pants on SDSR and the F35/P8
Interesting he's looking long term. Was even some discussion of getting P8s sooner using US airframes and RAF crews.
"I have never accepted the strategic shrinkage argument for a minute," Cameron said. "We needed to make sure we got our economy back on track but even so we have the second-largest defense budget in NATO."
The British prime minister said the SDSR "sends out a clear message that Britain is an engaged nation with global reach and global influence, not for national vanity but for reasons of clear-sighted national interest. We are a player in the world."
Cameron, speaking just after he had landed at the RAF Northholt air base just outside London, said the new SDSR showed there was going to be growth not just for the next five years but beyond that as two new Royal Navy aircraft carriers and additional F-35 strike jets for the warships come into service.
Key among the capability hikes revealed ahead of the SRSR's unveiling later Monday is a program to buy nine Boeing P-8 maritime patrol aircraft in a foreign military sales deal with the US.
Interesting he's looking long term. Was even some discussion of getting P8s sooner using US airframes and RAF crews.
"I have never accepted the strategic shrinkage argument for a minute," Cameron said. "We needed to make sure we got our economy back on track but even so we have the second-largest defense budget in NATO."
The British prime minister said the SDSR "sends out a clear message that Britain is an engaged nation with global reach and global influence, not for national vanity but for reasons of clear-sighted national interest. We are a player in the world."
Cameron, speaking just after he had landed at the RAF Northholt air base just outside London, said the new SDSR showed there was going to be growth not just for the next five years but beyond that as two new Royal Navy aircraft carriers and additional F-35 strike jets for the warships come into service.
Key among the capability hikes revealed ahead of the SRSR's unveiling later Monday is a program to buy nine Boeing P-8 maritime patrol aircraft in a foreign military sales deal with the US.
A4kscooter
Member
The Italians and possibly Israelis are considering purchasing both the F35A and
F35B so why can't the UK?
As the current plan is the QE carriers carry a complement of 12 x F35B each why does the RAF require VTOL aircraft?
48 x F35B for the RN and the remainder for the RAF as Tornado and older Typhoon replacements.
F35A are cheaper, have better range, carry more weapons and the same version is operated by allies.
F35B so why can't the UK?
As the current plan is the QE carriers carry a complement of 12 x F35B each why does the RAF require VTOL aircraft?
48 x F35B for the RN and the remainder for the RAF as Tornado and older Typhoon replacements.
F35A are cheaper, have better range, carry more weapons and the same version is operated by allies.
The 2 x QE's have a max surge capacity of 36 F-35's, 36 x 2 = 72, Throw in some spares, training aircraft etc etc and the numbers start to build up. Shouldn't also discount the usefulness of such an aircraft for the Army, where the Tornado's and Typhoons require established run ways while the F-35B can use a basic location.
By this time the F-35B being the larger number required it becomes financially more suitable to make it the sole variant as it requires only a single logistics support/supply line.
Given the number of extra Harriers squeezed on to Hermes & Invincible in 1982, I wouldn't assume that 36 is a hard upper limit on the F-35B complement of a QE class. There've been occasional mentions in published RN stuff of carrying up to 10 more aircraft (not necessarily all F-35) than the notional maximum.
all carriers have a surge capacity to increase aviation carriage....
at some point the risk analysis kicks in of whether they all need to be able to be garaged or whether some latitiude will kick in on extra top space issues.
the delimiter is the impact on operational tempo as its also about what can be rotated in and out from below to above and not have top deck real estate congestion when operations are underway
nobody wants to do a "guam" - especially on a carrier in a hot environment
at some point the risk analysis kicks in of whether they all need to be able to be garaged or whether some latitiude will kick in on extra top space issues.
the delimiter is the impact on operational tempo as its also about what can be rotated in and out from below to above and not have top deck real estate congestion when operations are underway
nobody wants to do a "guam" - especially on a carrier in a hot environment
Surge on the QE's is stated as 50 A/C of whatever type. They're built around the idea that their normal working compliment can all be easily accessed, stowed below decks and can generate a tolerable sortie rate. It's the 21st century. Yes, if we beamed it back to the 1970's I'm sure you'd stack 70 A/C into the damn things but we're not.
the other variable is how the task force runs under a distributed air load
eg rotors could get distributed to other skimmers and their real estate then consumed by fixed wing air
and if its just an in transit issue then you could stack as many on there as the ops and safety officers deemed ok etc.....
SpazSinbad
Active Member
"...Asked whether the UK could consider a future split-buy strategy also involving the delivery of some conventional take-off and landing F-35As, Dunne referred to the MoD's experience in dealing with an ill-fated decision to switch allegiance to the US Navy's carrier variant F-35C. "We've had some pretty agonising discussions over variant choice in the past. I have no intention of reopening that discussion...." 12 Sep 2013
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/dsei-uk-holding-firm-on-f-35-procurement-plan-390492/
I can imagine a carrier transporting some aircraft for use on other ships, & also serving as a hub for operating some transported on other ships. Remember 1982? We shipped some down in lightly & very quickly modded freighters, & flew them off when they got there. If an empty F-35B can take off from a pad on a freighter & fly over to the carrier a mile away (& back, when the space is needed) we could do that again. Helicopters certainly can.
Not that it'd be done routinely, of course.
t68
Well-Known Member
One of the inherited flexability on sticking with the B. And in the future to adding more support aircraft such as AWACS/AAR if the UK ever decides to get a version of MV-22 in the future
The question regarding an all B fleet or a split fleet of B's and A's is vastly diffrent from the switch from B to C totally diffrent reasoning, both options have their pro and con's, but 138 would be the minimum if the conops have a overload requirment for both CVF and be on operations at the same time which may or may not ever happen but the option is there.
SpazSinbad
Active Member
How some text is interpreted is within the context and always open to other interpretations; however to me the quote is specific 'no other variants' will be considered - by Dunne anyway and it was back in 2013 whilst the B to C and back again was used only as an example of such ponderings. I'm sure there will be plans in a drawer for all kinds of contingencies (such as Oz F-35Bs on Oz LHDs in our ADF) but I digress.
No plans AFAIK
The requirement for an organic air-refueller is less critical with STOVL jets which don't bolt during landings. IIRC that was a complicating issue with the F-35C operating off of CVFs.
For the meantime, if the need is to extend range, then the current A2A refuelling options come into play including USAF, USN and USMC assets in a likely coalition scenario.
For the meantime, if the need is to extend range, then the current A2A refuelling options come into play including USAF, USN and USMC assets in a likely coalition scenario.
t68
Well-Known Member
Whilst as you say it's not a critical element at this stage, but as time goes on and the CVF gets used to its potencial having the ability to incorparate AAR will give mission planning staff options that might not be avalible. The Buccaneer overflight of Bleize in 72? at the limit of there endurance comes to mind