The first flight for the U.K.’s first F-35, known as BK-1, took place on April 13, 2012. BK-1 is also the first international F-35.
The timing of course, could not have been more interesting!
F-35 BK-1 First Flight
F-35 BK-1 First Flight
F-35 BK-1 First Flight
F-35 BK-1 First Flight
F-35 BK-1 First Flight
And here is another interesting picture…
MoD 'reconsidering aircraft carrier changes'
Take your bets…
lol, to call it a circus would be an understatement!
They couldn’t cause more damage by spending money if they tried… Whoever got the PM to make a rushed last minute change should be named and publicly held accountable.
Let’s sea if those Sea Harriers still work
Repulse @ 7.03
LF isn’t looking very clever as all this stuff comes out.
Dave the Rave is just the pitch man, others do the thinking.
If they go back to the B version then he will pay a heavy price.
Looking more and more like the Grocer with every passing day.
One question will the UK F35s be assembled in Britain / Warton?
FBOT: Do we know though that LF was the man? Sounded like the PM was getting direct lobbying from the service heads as the announcement loomed and the last minute change took most people by surprise…
No the uk passed on the offer of a final assembly italy took that. The uks f35s will all come from forth worth Texas. We will however build all aft fuselages and ejector seats for every a/c produced.
It’s worth pointing out that we don’t have actually have the aircraft yet and this flight was by one of the LM test pilots.
The reports in the Times regarding the service chiefs support for B likely comes down to being told that they’d otherwise have to make very large cuts in the short term to pay for Nellie and Dumbo. Totally ignoring that we’re going to be paying through the nose for the next 50 years or so.
That Telegraph article seems a little garbled, like it was written by someone who isn’t quite sure which F35 is which. Do wish these defence correspondents could figure out the complexities of wikipedia sometimes.
I’m pretty sure the military chiefs apparently lobbying for a re-switch back to B would rather have the F35C, if there were no strings attached. Coin-flipping defence planning wins the day though, great.
The Navy’s site posted and then pulled an F35 story just a few hours ago. Wonder if they pre-empted an official decision.
Going with the B saves some cash in the present but sticking with the C plans for the future.
Simply stunning looking aircraft btw!
The Mail reckons the verdict is in
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2130612/EXCLUSIVE-Cameron-makes-humiliating-u-turn-future-Britains-aircraft-carriers.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
treat with caution
The UK will not reconfigure its aircraft carriers so that French fighter jets can land on them, senior government officials have told their French counterparts.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f276fbaa-87e4-11e1-b1ea-00144feab49a.html#axzz1sEdVmmkY
Did the Navy sacrifice the Ark Royal to try to get F35C? … and has the RAF outwitted the PC Plods who run the Navy once again?
Tell me at least that the Navy will get to own and operate its own aircraft … or maybe even get to keep the second carrier ….
All we need is some VSTOL aircraft to train our pilots on… What a bunch of twats.
F35C too heavy to land on CdeG, amazing, don’t these people check Wikipedia before making billion pound policy decisions?
@ Ichabod, ‘and has the RAF outwitted the PC Plods who run the Navy once again?’
I’m not sure what you mean?
‘Tell me at least that the Navy will get to own and operate its own aircraft ‘
The exact outline hasn’t been announced yet, but they will have 40% of the manning and various posts throughout the Joint fleet. Although ‘ownership’ I think will be done through 1 Group although there maybe RN snr ofs within that. As to sqns; whether this an entire sqn or all mixed isn’t clear yet, although the first posts have been drawn up.
The thing I can’t get is the F-35 is too heavy to work off CdG, so in all the discussions we had with the French in the last two years did no one ask them or did they not say “Err sorry guys bit of a problem there…” Or is that going to be used as a scapegoat?
Given that the French dropped out of the EFA programme (that lead to the Typhoon) as they wanted a smaller plane that was carrier capable surely to god somebody in the MoD/RAF must have known that as well?
But hold on if it is true that would mean that the F35C could only land using AAG not the current US Navy standard arrestor gear which as also used on CdeG? That would mean it could only operate on the new still to be built US Carriers not the existing Nimitz class. Something smelly here?
Repulse @ 7.24
Dave the Rave doesn’t like the military.
They are just a useful electioneering tactic.
I fear he was bullied by the Eton branch of the OTC.
If LF was not involved in the opriginal decision then it was worse than a shambles.
Dave doesn’t / can’t do detail as the ongoing shambles of his administration proves on a regular basis.
Consequently someone with braid will be up for the chop.
This really is a VC10 class fiasco.
The only difference appears to be that it could not be kept internal
You have to wonder who started laughing at Dave dancing bollock naked in the street?
Interesting that RN/Frog co-operation was the main driver regarding the change.
Am I alone in thinking we are far too reliant of the French and other allies?
Blame the French, I don’t think so
CDG wont be there forever and wasnt the plan to use their investment in CVF design to build a replacement, one that one would assume would have the same handling characteristics as the UK CVF design.
Setting the French up as a convenient excuse I think
@TD
If the Daily Fail is right then I think the only possible thing to make this clusterfuck worse is if the US cancels Dave B in their defence cuts…
@Topman
The issue over control of aircraft is that if Joint Air Base Queen Elizabeth is ever to be more than a floating near-offshore runway it needs a full suite of aviation assets – not just the ones the Royal Aircraft Force want to play with. Like AEW, ASW, cargo etc etc.
Unless a fully capable organic air group is stood up, the rationale / national intent to possess a carrier is fatally weakened …. the RAF would never want that, would they?
My God.
It’s reached the stage where I don’t care what they decide, JUST MAKE A FECKING DECISION
That said if they do decide to go down the B route, then only sell 50 Harriers to the USMC (ideally none but …) and keep the rest for the FAA to keep their hand in until the Bs start arriving. Probably cheaper than reactivating the SHARs….
“F35C too heavy to land on CdeG, amazing, don’t these people check Wikipedia before making billion pound policy decisions?” Waddi, the runway for the CdeG was only found to be too short during its sea trials. Now that’s a huge fu** up……..is this what they mean by closer military ties? Even bigger mistakes, but with the ability to blame the other partner?
George, I think its too late for the Harriers, I’m sure they started leaving in November last year, packed in crates under cover of darkness. Will have to check.
….still think its a truly amazing aircraft though. I sincerely hope it never gets canned.
I reckon Solomon (of SNAFU) has been, erm’ “leaning” on various UK politicians to ensure his beloved USMC get it’s equally beloved “Dave B” as it won’t be easy to can it now if were back on it……
what a load of bollocks eh – Gimme some Growlers !
Ref: “Unless a fully capable organic air group is stood up, the rationale / national intent to possess a carrier is fatally weakened …. the RAF would never want that, would they?”
Shock news just in via Financial Times of Yorkshire:
“In a quiet Monday night news release, the MoD has revealed that in future all Tomahawk missiles launched by RN submarines will be flown by RAF pilots. Air Vice-Marshal Biggin Hill noted that “Air power is the RAF’s business, if UK military policy requires deep strike capabilities then they will be provided by the Air Force, as it is the branch of the armed services that has the key role of “reaching out to touch” the enemy”.
Although the Admiral of the Fleet was unavailable for comment (on a run ashore in Gib), a naval spokesperson stated that there should not be any problems, as long as the RAF personnel will fit in a standard diameter torpedo tube.
Jed,
That was fecking magical. Will their standard diameter torpedo tube be en suite with turndown service, 300-count bedsheets, and Continental breakast with cappucino provided in one’s, erm, quarters? Because if not there will be hell to pay at High Wycombe ….
So, what is QE’s day to day airgroup going to look like?
12 F-35B’s;
5 EH-101 ASW
3 EH-101 AEW
2 CH-47 with long range tanks for COD.
????
Atleast it would allow training when Queen Elizabeth commissions.
Assuming no further delays on the F-35, full production should be authorised by 2017 so an RN order around 2016 for 20 or so aircraft with deliveries between 2018/20 and you are in business.
The question then becomes when and to what extent the RAF gets F-35′s.
Jackstaff
You can imagine the mirth among the wardroom stewards:
“ere, make sure that bleedin’ crab get’s a hearty breakfast, he ain’t figured out yet that ‘is Tomahawk don’t come back….. least we can do do is send i’m off with a big fry up…..”
From Financial Times of Yorkshire:
“In a related development, Air Marshall Sir Topam Hat has noted that for the RN’s planned T26 “global combat thingy” his service will be looking for “tall, lanky individuals” that can be packed 4 at a time into a VLS tube, so that if the RN ever gets any land attack missiles into the surface fleet, the RAF will be ready to provide the pilots, so that they too can be flown by “proper” aviators.”
Which aircraft do you mean Ace Rimmer?
If it’s Harrier I think it’s a perfect candidate for a CAS and expeditionary aircraft much in the same vein the U.S.M.C uses them.
Generally I’m supportive of having the RAF but I don’t think there is much argument that they have utterly failed to justify their large and expensive armed wing with the last two wars and been shown to be severely deficient in other regards.
They seem to have failed to notice this particular shortcoming, probably because the politically correct brigade that runs them thinks their efforts are better spent being nice to Lesbians and getting the LGBT seal of approval.
However, I think most people will agree that the ‘show of force’ is the most limp wristed and useless contribution to the field of modern warfare.
The other options are limited to buying some of the A-10s that the air national guard in the U.S are losing or armed Tucanos much like the U.S navy COIN programme.
The problem with the CDG is not the arrestor gear but the actual deck its self. The F35C is a big aircraft and lands at a very high approach speed. Obviously CDG was never designed with such an aircraft in mind. It really shows the callibare of the MOD top brass that no one thought to check this before coming up with our new grand strategy. If it’s back to B then I am okay. Atleasst we are likley to get carrier air back 1 or 2 years earlier and we have a much increased chance of keeping both QE and Ark Royal (POW).
In terms of holding some one to account for this farce I am sure it is the current governments fault. I doubt the service chiefs would have liked to announce such a decision in the short period of time that SDSR allowed with no clear indication on cost. But it made a great headline and every one at the navy was to busy congratulating themselves about having a proper carrier to note that half the fleet was gone in one go.
Jed,
And here I thought Topham was spending his retirement as colonel-in-chief of the RLC these days….
Nah, don’t waste a fry-up, cold launch does nothing for the crabs’ stomachs, just a banjo or two and they’re sorted. If they want tall, lanky individuals all that Fenland inbreeding ’round the old Bomber Command bases will come in awfully handy ….
This fudge can only go so far surely… If the switch goes ahead, the FAA should get just enough to support a permanent 12 a/c squadron with a token ability to surge 36 in extreme circumstances – this needs what 40 a/c? These will be to provide layered air defence of a task group. Apaches / wildcats should be used for ground air support.
The RAF should in the meantime go back to the drawing board and decide what they actually need / want for deep strike – though one of the requirements should be it can fly from a CVF. In the meantime, extend the life of the Tornado, upgrade the Typhoon and get the RN another SSN – to cover the requirement.
@ Ichabod
‘Unless a fully capable organic air group is stood up, the rationale / national intent to possess a carrier is fatally weakened …. the RAF would never want that, would they?’
I’m not sure how/why you’ve linked capabilities such as AEW etc with who ‘controls/owns’ the F35 fleet unless I’ve missed something.
@ Repulse, I think the split on manning has already been done, the FAA won’t get 40 a/c.
Let’s not get disappointed by the switch back to B. If the decision is made it only gets us back where we started which I believe was realistic for our budget and needs – i.e. a substantially more capable VSTOL carrier provision than that offered by the Invincibles and a ‘carrier strike’ capability second only to the US with swing role to more helicopter focussed for assault role. It also gets it much earlier than cats and traps and will hopefully allow both carriers in service, one active, one hot reserve (two active in major crisis). As for the RAF, lets sweat the enormous investment in typhoon, keep all tranche 1, withdraw tornado immediately and take time to consider the most appropriate longer term typhoon replacement (Dave A B or C – or D?). RAF then focusses on getting right MPA / land based AEW and transport and other important aspects of its service. These to me are equally important as expeditionary fast jet capability. Yes, one extra Astute please
Topman, If we can switch one way and then another we can easily do a switch on manning especially as it looks like we will have F35B and another type of fast jet as a tornado replacement.
Surely F35B will become Joint Force VSTOL or something? 3 operational squadrons and one training/OCU.
Manning TBC, in the mean time back to the drawing board for the RAF and tornado replacement with F35A being favourite but not nailed on.
@Topman – I agree with APATS, changing the ownership of the F35B would be a mere fleeting blush on the crimson face of a goverment who is doing more U turns that a learner driver practicing for their test.
Let’s have clear accountability and decision making for a change…
Excellent comment Mickp, couldnt agree more
As has already been mentioned I fear the F-35 will be operated just like the Harrier Force, never permenently asigned to a carreir but flown out for exercises and operations as required. How many squadrons is unknown but there has always been a shortage of RN FJ pilots (Reason 2nd FAA harrier squadron never stood up) So in reality they will be under RAF control and if needed on land will not be available for carrier rotation again like the harrier force when committed in Afghanistan. SO we are going to have 1 or 2 very expensive mobile airfields, but definitely not Carriers in mould of the USN, france, India, Brazil and China or as most people understand what carriers mean. Bloody great HMS Ocean replacements!
Everyone involved in the CVF/JCA cock up since 1998 should be put against a wall and shot with photographs of the event widely distributed around the MoD, Government departments and Industry with the logo “Mess things up again and this is your future!”
Mickp I broadly agree with you but worry that Typhoon will never be an adequate replacement for Tornado. So we lose the capability that Tornado gave us. Would love an extra Astute but not cheap and with spreading capability maybe the money could be spent on putting in the 16/24 cell Mk 41 silo on t45 to give us more units capable of land attack.
@ APATS, yes a change in manning could occur and in the grand scheme of these is nothing at all. Yes it will be a joint formation. I was just putting what had happened so far, and what was likely to happen rather than what people want to happen. I can’t see the FAA getting all the F35 for various reasons.
@Topman
Simply that doing naval aviation is a complete package not just the fighters. If you have the two organisations sharing a common fighter only based part-time at sea the RAF may justifiably ask why they should support the Navy to get funding for manned aircraft for the other parts of the task.
If you have full-time naval fighters, getting the funds from the Treasury for the full package ought to be easier?
BTW – doesn’t the whole French excuse stink to high heaven? Who is to say they will even clear F35B for operation off CDG?
So we are switching back to what is objectively a less capable aircraft because the better one can’t land on the French mini-carrier (but can land on the USN’s 10+ platforms).
@ APATS
‘So we lose the capability that Tornado gave us’
Extending it’s life would be the cheapest option, the German are doing a similar final upgrade as us and are looking at 15-18 years until OSD.
@ Ichabod
‘Simply that doing naval aviation is a complete package not just the fighters. If you have the two organisations sharing a common fighter only based part-time at sea the RAF may justifiably ask why they should support the Navy to get funding for manned aircraft for the other parts of the task.
If you have full-time naval fighters, getting the funds from the Treasury for the full package ought to be easier?’
My thoughts would be not, even if it is part time, it would be in both parties interests to have a full capabilities on board. Infact it’s more likely, it’s both sets of blokes in the firing line both services are tied to the same project. My thoughts are a single service force would make it less not more likely to give you what you want in your earlier post. 2 voices are louder than 1.
Topma, How would that go down with the US if we decided that actually our total F35 buy was going to be 48 B variant? The German airframes will almost certainly have less hours on them and definitely less hours in places like afghanistan and Ops in Libya. they do like to squeeze every bit of life out of an airframe do our Deutsch friends. They will have F4Fs in service until september this year i believe.
I have to agree with the comments above – 40+ Bs for the FAA and let RAF take its time over Tornado replacement. Jfh was too much of a compromise IMHO
G
@ APATS
Sorry I think I’ve missed something, how would what?
‘How would that go down with the US if we decided that actually our total F35 buy was going to be 48 B variant?’
‘The German airframes will almost certainly have less hours on them and definitely less hours in places like afghanistan and Ops in Libya. they do like to squeeze every bit of life out of an airframe do our Deutsch friends. They will have F4Fs in service until september this year i believe.’
They may well have, but as you say they’ve kept F4 going for 20 years since we last got rid of ours so airframe hours is no barrier to extending the life of GR4. The one going through ours now would see easily past 2020, it’s other issues that might stop it.
@ G
’40+ Bs for the FAA and let RAF take its time over Tornado replacement. Jfh was too much of a compromise IMHO’
That possible but is it likely? To my mind the question is would the RN want that? Which isn’t such a stupid question as it sounds at first.
Topman @ 9.15
Surely the big issue here is the cost base of the RAF and its high unit cost of doing anything?
We are spending more and more, doing less and less.
8 squadrons and falling of fast jets is not an airforce it is nice chaps dressing up in uniforms.
Maybe now the education subsidy is for the chop we will get people interested in the job at hand and not distressed gentle folk trying to make good private schooling affordable.
Why does every aircraft type need a hugely expensive BWoS support contract attached to it?
We seem to have run out of 3LAs and we are now onto 4LAs / 5LAs to describe them.
Wasn’t the Jaguar run pretty efficiently over its last decade?
Did the support infrastructure actually work or was it just MOD spin?
How many squadrons do the IAF have?
What costs do they work to?
How does the RAF compare?
Was this not an issue when MP was involved in the mid 90s?