I know I have been promising a follow up post on the F35 for a while now (trust me, its nearly ready) but in the meantime the UK has taken delivery of its second aircraft
Click to go supersize
Think DefenceUK Defence Issues and the odd container or two
i was reading on defense industry daily that P&W have “won” a contract to inmprove the engine by 5%, as pointed out as they are the sole engine provider not hard to win that then!!
cut and paste of article;
Oct 19/12: Engines. United Technologies’ Pratt and Whitney Military Engines in East Hartford, CT wins an $81.9 million cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for services and materials for the preliminary design, detailed design, and engine performance testing in support of the F135 Fuel Burn Reduction Program. The objective of the program is to demonstrate a 5% mission weighted fuel burn reduction in a F135 experimental engine configuration.
Competition can produce the same kinds of benefits, of course, but the Pentagon has chosen not to do that.
I want to love it, but its an ugly plane.
Why isn’t it in RAF livery / colours or whatever you pale blue types call it?
I don’t think it’s ugly at all, unconventional perhaps, but also futuristic and sleek.
Ascetics don’t stand any more still than technology does.
Phil
It is in raf colours. You can paint it with different paint if you wish but it will affect the a/c signature. Paint on a number of our a/c especially the bland looking ones is there for a reason.
I meant I couldn’t see a roundel.
Phil
Sorry top image right wing underside and the flash on the v stab in the bottom image
The official website for the F-35 is jsf.mil which contains all the project press releases plus a good collection of pictures.
From what you can glean, the project seems to have picked up a bit of speed on clearances possibly because of the various kicks in the bumb coming out of the US DOD.
What is plainly missing is any real comment on how the software is developing and reports on specific issues like fatigue testing, the helmet mounted sight, systems reliability, the fuel dump problem and version specific issues like whether the F-35C can take a wire.
Still those nice Americans do tend to publish a lot more information than other equipment developers.
http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ain-defense-perspective/2012-10-19/lockheed-martin-provides-f-35-flight-test-update
Two aircraft – that makes a flight! Or even a trials squadron. Should it not have a unit number now? Maybe 700A NAS….
700L surely??
Or if the “Dave” sobriquet sticks, 700D!!
A Parliamentary answer from yesterday revealed the FAA has 38 fixed wing pilots
Perhaps more surprising is the total number of “pilots” at 635 – 2.5% of trained RN strength. It is unclear whether this number includes Observers.
That total feeds 15 squadrons, plus exchange and staff tours. No reason why the f/w element of it couldn’t be expanded to 150 or so in due course. Question is whether RN can find another 100+ fast-jet aptitude types and afford the £50M pa additional cost – assuming a £500k pa cost per body.
I believe there was a situation in the late 80s when there was a shortage of Fast Jet Pilots and a number of Helicopter pilots underwent FJ training.
I am surprised the Navy has as many as it does currently – they have done a good job retaining them.
Anyone know if Sharkey’s lad is still serving? Just curious!
Really what we have today is a pool of fast jet pilots who will switch and change between sea and land through their career. The service specific parts of the organisation will be the maintainers. I still maintain nobody joins the RAF to go to sea.
I think the F-35 looks wonderful. I personally the the C variant is the best looking of the bunch with the big wings I just like how it looks. The F-35 is going to be fat in the body due to what it does but I think as far as attack oriented stealth fighters good it will be among the best looking. The X-32 was the ugly one. You could have all ended up flying open mouth horror show.
I’m not surprised. I used to think flying helicopters would be boring but you get plenty of excitement and action no matter what model you fly. Especially if you are a jungly.
Personally I think Rafale is the best looking FJ out there. Heathen I know but it’s got pleasing lines.
X I remember reading somewhere that RAF trainee pilots were actually quite excited about the prospect of getting on the CVF.
Correct me if I’m wrong but the F35B ship board trials on Wasp that was done last year the UK pilot involved in the launch and recovery testing was RAF.
@mmoomin
It’s a valid point and something that I have thought for quite a while, surely a fast jet pilot from the RAF is first and foremost a pilot and not just service aligned.
I am sure whatever branch you are from the prospect of working on a carrier is an exciting notion, though of course a 6 month deployment on a boat in rough seas is another thing altogether!
@Challenger: pilots may be pilots, but an RAF pilot cannot progress to command a carrier, only a land based wing, and will have minimal naval warfare knowledge. Given pilot training is mostly single service, I really cannot see why there is an economic case for wanting anything other than the odd exchange pilot on CVF. We have plenty of time to train more naval pilots if that is what’s required.
mmoomin said “I remember reading somewhere that RAF trainee pilots were actually quite excited about the prospect of getting on the CVF.”
I said “Really what we have today is a pool of fast jet pilots who will switch and change between sea and land through their career.”
Since CVA got scrapped the RN has always relied on RAF to make up the numbers of FJ pilots.
And then I went on to say,
“The service specific parts of the organisation will be the maintainers. I still maintain nobody joins the RAF to go to sea.”
Again I can only speak from experience of why 16/17/18 y-o-s choose whatever service career they choose. A one off exchange or draft may add a bit of variety but it is very different.
“So why do you want to join the RAF then?”
“Well Flight I have always wanted to see the world, not the touristy bits, and so I thought joining the RAF and the chance I might spend most of my service career in the home counties only 2 hours from home will help me achieve that ambition.”
“So why do want to join the RN then?”
“Well Chief I get terribly sea sick, hate water, and can’t stand living on top of others in an enclosed environment. I think sea sickness really helps you when are trying to perform highly technical tasks that are required by the RN’s modern equipment.”
@wf
I wasn’t suggesting anything as extreme as RAF pilots moving on mass to the FAA, and I agree it’s sufficient to have them do a degree of training on CVF to get acquainted and factor in some contingency manpower that can bolster the RN in an emergency situation.
The point I was making was that although all service personnel are partisan I find no problem in making the assumption that if a pilot loves his or hers job and has a passion for flying then they would surely be very happy to train in a new and challenging environment.
I have to be honest, I still really don’t get why the RAF is going to operate the F-35B at all. I don’t see the operational imperative to have that capability there. Sure, there are situations where you might employ them ashore but you could simply use RN assets in those few cases.
It would seem to me to make the most sense to put all the F-35B models with the FAA and then if the RAF needs the aircraft simply buy the F-35A for the RAF. If they don’t just have the RAF operate the Typhoon.
It just seems like a power play by the RAF honestly.
I wonder if the spectre of a cancellation of the F35B by the US is still hoving in the background?
The yanks have a collosal budget deficit to balance, and a scrapping of the least important (to them) of the F35 designs might become a ‘diffuclt decision’ the next president has to make.
What then? Navalised Typhoon?
@SteveD
Two points.
First the F-35 is not getting cancelled in any of its versions. There is just nothing coming down the pipe to replace it and everyone knows it. Plus the program is past its worst problems in almost all areas at this point.
Second it is important to remember that while the US does have a budget deficit that is large as a percentage of GDP it is not that much above what the UK has been and is running. Additionally the US does this with a 27% national tax rate while the UK is running their deficit with 39% national tax rate (tax revenues measured against GDP, US ones include state tax revenue). Were the US to raise its level of taxation to UK levels it would be running a surplus immediately.
@Steve D
I personally don’t think so. The B will achieve IOC first, the Marines (with a lot of political clout) need stovl, there are export orders and potential export orders for the B.
The one that is most at risk has to be the C. Last to enter service, USN contingency buying Super Hornets etc. no export orders.
However I thought the whole programme was pretty much safe?
@ Jeremy M H
While I agree there will be no cancellation of a model of F35, the funds and the political will are lacking for any accommodation of further cost or schedule overruns but these continue to seem inevitable.
With an unacceptable $1 trillion life time cost the number of F35 aircraft is going to be much reduced – both for the US and all the other buyers; witness the UK’s move from 130 ish to a current 48 (and then maybe more in two decades).
The result is therefore going to be an increase in the fragility of the fleet in the sense that losing aircraft will be so costly, it all points to me towards an increase in the use of UAVs which can be produced cheaply and rapidly.
I agree the RAF will retain some input to the F35 but their main focus will be the Typhoon of for no other reason than they are pleased with its performance in Libya, getting back to the fragile fleet the UK F35s may end up as rare in combat as the F22. So if the UK F35 doesn’t go into combat it will be slow to show it’s capabilities a viscous circle
As to what we will use, I still wonder about the Grippen the NG version will have some impressive stats and if the cost remains low then it might be a perfect partner for Typhoon as land based and a potential STOBAR partner for F35 on the carriers (if we spend the money to get arrestors- I’m not sure anyone knows what they would cost to fit)
@RW
The $1 trillion lifetime cost is the biggest bunch of bs I have ever heard spouted as truth. The fact of the matter is the lifetime cost of keeping legacy fighters around would be even higher. Even if we accept a trillion or 1.5 trillion as the cost of buying and operating all those planes for 30 years it is still a pretty small chunk of the US defense budget over that period considering that the plane will comprise the huge majority of the tactical aircraft the US will possess in that period.
For the UK my prime reason to keep the RAF in the Typhoon is to get enough F-35B’s for the FAA to operate in good numbers. Once that purchase is done the UK should look to replace the Typhoon with the F-35A as it matures, its cost come down and the Typhoon reaches the end of its useful service life which will come sooner than one thinks. If you can only have one platform 10-15 years from now the F-35A will be vastly preferable to the Typhoon and makes sense for the RAF at that point.
@Jeremy M H
‘It just seems like a power play by the RAF honestly’.
I think it seems like a power play because it is!
Way back with Typhoon slated to replace the Jaguar and Tornado F3, plus FOAS in the works the RAF only had an interest in the Lightning because of it’s own attributes and because it got one over on the RN by being a continuation of JFH.
Fast forwards a bit and suddenly the RAF had nothing to replace the Tornado GR4 with and an ever decreasing end fleet of Typhoons as comfort. Whether they can justify the need or not it’s a ‘strike’ replacement as much as a Harrier and is now the only viable option to retain some semblance of the huge offensive fleet they once wielded.
I see no coherent reason why the RAF needs Lightning beyond keeping it’s numbers up and getting the latest fast/shiny toy! Since the end of the Cold War it’s not as if they had even needed/wanted the Harrier, and as you say any RN jets can work perfectly well on a nice big airbase any-time it’s required.
I would love to see the FAA get full control, but lets face it this isn’t about logical need or operational effectiveness. The RAF controls the money, the pilots and just isn’t going to tolerate a situation where they are left with 107 Typhoon’s to build their future on.
@Challenger
That is why were I the UK I procure in two blocks. I buy 48 (or whatever) F-35B’s towards the front end of production to give to the FAA so you can fully outfit a carrier or put mixed wings on both if you want to.
Then when that is done I look to replace the Typhoon wholesale with the F-35A and remove the Typhoon from service. The end result is that I end up with two planes with a lot of MX commonality, both having robust development paths and both having similar operational characteristics for planning purposes. I can then plan my supporting forces (for example make decisions on what I need to do for SEAD) on what makes sense to support F-35′s in combat rather than trying to balance a stealth plane and a non-stealth plane (and a networked and non-networked plane almost as importantly) that have pretty different profiles from a planning perspective.
@Jeremy M H
My only issue would be with procuring a batch of F35A whilst the Typhoon still has plenty of life left, because then we would end up with a more complicated supply and operating framework and create a two tier/variant fleet of aircraft which was precisely the mistake we set out to avoid after the difficulties and rivalries over the Harrier/Sea Harrier situation.
I agree that it would be great to have enough F35B to satisfy the needs of the FAA, and I agree that ending up with a mix of A/B split between the two services is a good idea for the future. However in the shorter term I think the RAF has to be placated and cajoled into fully utilising it’s Typhoon’s first, with the F35A promised as a replacement and not an addition later on.
@ Jeremy M H
You’re making a massive mistake if you think $1 trillion is affordable for the US
Their entire annual budget is heading towards $500 billion a year and most of that is already completely committed to staff costs, veteran support and sustaining the current base for US forces, plus some elements of reset.
The DOD and many US politicians have said flat out that they cannot commit $1 trillion to any one program, when there are such a range of capabilities that they need to fund.
Look at the struggle they are having to meet a congressionally mandated fleet of carriers, the USN will effectively be breaking the law when the” Indy” is retired, three Zumwalts only, same for Seawolf and the current Aegis destroyers won’t have the power for the next generation of naval radars.
F35 is not going to be cut but you’re wildly ill informed if you think that Lockheed is going to just keep pissing of the US military,y they are fast becoming the most untrusted of the majors and they have a strangle hold on fighter production that the DOD will not long tolerate.
When finally there is a working helmet and the F35C can stop on a carrier and etc.. There will be new bills to pay and they will come directly from the F35 core budget.
Suggest you pay attention to the US defense scene, it’s not the gravy train you seem to imagine and the consequences will impact us before long, both in good and bad ways.
Rw
60% of that 1tr dollars number is inflation over the next 50 years over service so that is a given for any a/c they operate over the same period. I think fuels in there too. It’s like asking the air ministry in 1955 how much it will cost for them to service, fuel and fly a hawker hunter in 2012 prices utterly pointless number.
Is the rn going to start paying for basic and fast jet flight training for there aircrews and the maintenance personnel to operate these 50odd a/c cause I’d guarantee the rafs operational budget won’t be spent on it. Who knows we could cut have the surface to pay for it. Or perhaps well just buy the f35b in enough numbers to allow the 60:40 splits will enough jets at readiness to allow land and sea deployments simulationously which is pretty much the plan.
The $1 trillion figure is a 50-year operating price.
If the budget is $500 billion per year that means the US defense budget over that period is going to be roughly $25 trillion dollars. The F-35 operating expenses are thus going to be about 4% of the US military budget over those 50 years.
The F-35 and other critical programs are going to be paid for by reducing the Army establishment (probably pretty drastically) which will cut payroll, base cost and other expenses. The Army is not critical to what the powers that be envision as the US role in the next 50 years. The Air Force and Navy will be and funding will be realigned to reflect that.
It is certainly not an inconsiderable cost. I am not suggesting that. Like any other organization the US military faces plenty of funding challenges. What I am suggesting is that the F-35 will not make or break any military or national budgets over that 50 year span. The US will spend more on a huge number of things, both within the military and in the national budget, that will cost far far more than the F-35.
Jeremy I can’t agree with the reasoning why would we create multiple fast jet fleets again it’s what we are trying to get away from? After 2030ish we will have an all F35 fleet.
Also the F35B can take off conventionally and land conventionally it’ll use up less fuel doing so also so I bet that is what it will be doing most of the time apart from when deployed on the CVF. There is no point imho in buying the A to chop off the possibility of a 36 ship surge to a CVF. The FAA have way more chopper pilots than FJ they need the RAF to be able to field a 36 ship surge. I think the range thing gets over stated as most operations will use tankers anyway.
The A model is about 75% the cost of a B model meaning that if you decide to go to an all F-35 fleet as you say above you would save around $2.8 billion in USD just on buying the things. The planes also have a lot of commonality so it is not like you are buying an all new plane, just a different variant.
To me the force structure that makes the most sense is 100-120 F-35A’s for the RAF and around 50 F-35B’s for the RN. That would let you surge any one carrier with a full load of F-35′s or outfit two with a pretty good compliment plus helicopters.
Yes, it might be nice to have an all F-35B force but it is a huge additional cost when played out among that many aircraft that you would need to replace the Eurofighter.
In short I would say there are $2.6 billion points for why one would buy the A model for the RAF if you decide to go to an all F-35 force.
By the time Typhoon goes the UK will be down to 100 or so operational front line FJ split roughly fifty fifty QRA/home island defence (more for a reserve and rest than of any real use) and expedition (both carrier and land.) If we put all the service rivalry rhubarb to one side I think there will be a drive to use CVF as much as possible. I think CVF may be our only basing option at times. And that will mean B.
Interesting reading… I like the idea of a “home island” and “expeditionary” fleet split
Not really sure I see the need to have a single jet fleet. I’d just pick the best jet for home island defence (QRA) and the best jet for expeditionary strike/support. Personally I think this is Typhoon and F35.
If you really need to start replacing older Typhoon then what’s wrong with more… Typhoon?
@Simon
‘If you really need to start replacing older Typhoon then what’s wrong with more… Typhoon?’
The problem, as you may already be aware, is that the Typhoon production line will start winding down after the primary customer acquisitions are complete, which is in 2017-18 (and 5 years away isn’t very much at all). Keeping it going longer would require a fair bit of money and political will, far more than the minimal business put it’s way by us ordering a few more for ourselves. I really can’t see it happening!
The F35 production line will be going much, much further into the future to deliver both it’s primary orders and also the expected mass of foreign ‘off the shelf’ purchases that will follow in it’s wake. The unit cost will drop as the numbers ramp up and their will be a considerably long line of software and hardware updates provided to all of it’s operators that will keep it a cutting edge, and as far as possible standardised platform.
For the most part I can only see this going one way, 48 F35B in the near future and around 100+ F35A in the far distance to replace Typhoon once it’s had a good run.
The only unknown here is whether additional F35 A or B will be procured in the interim period between the 2 core purchases described above. Essentially the question is whether the RAF will try and succeed in keeping it’s numbers close to current levels or whether 48 F35B will be the sole replacements for the Tranche 1 Typhoon’s plus the Tornado fleet going out of service at a simultaneous point.
Is it going to be a case of spend more money to keep you’re fleet at 200, or make do with the 150 you have left?
There are two questions. What do the RAF need a FJ for? And how can we best make use of CVF?
I wouldn’t be without QRA but this isn’t 1940. How many countries does the US have TLAM before the MoD realises that air defence priority is the missile not the bomber?
The majority of the world’s nations aren’t land locked like Afghanistan or have small coastlines like Iraq. Even in those wars naval has played a part. So in futures wars where there is a sea flank or just islands the carrier will be even more vital. Even if CVF just plays the part of ferry having B gives us options. Further you only have to look to advances in NGS/artillery PGM coming down line and greater use of AH to provide CAS to see that F35A may be a dead end purely because it can not land on to our carriers. It can do the job but it has no flexibility; look at US experiences in Vietnam and picture the UK doing similar. Our F35s need to be able to be used everywhere. We don’t need a split fleet just because the RAF fly off runways. Better 100 F35b than to hobble CVF with 100 F35a and just 50 or F35b. That would perversely make the F35a fleet, the bigger fleet, the boutique fleet. You cannot argue that deep strike, fighter, CAS, etc. are important and essential then argue that F35b flying off a platform that will allows to undertake those missions anywhere in the world is expensive and secondary. And the argument that F35a and F35b have large areas of commonality so we don’t need many B is the wrong way round. We don’t need A because it can’t land on CVF; it is the difference between A and B that is important. We need to maximise both CVF and F35b, buying A is just wasting money.
I agree x but we are dealing with politics and as such we will not get 100/140 f35b we may just get 48 f35b and 100 f35a or we will just get what has been ordered till 2035 2040 and then get what is the next big thing
@ Dan
If you look above I wasn’t too happy with the idea of 100 F35a and 50 or so F35b. In the end, barring a sudden and unexpected need, we will probably end up with about 100 FJ. By the time Typhoon reaches its OSD it will be down to about 100 airframes and the F35x buy becomes then a one for one replacement. The choice then really is half the fleet that can fly off the carrier and half the fleet that can’t. And that makes no sense. Politics runs both ways.
If we take the argument X is using to its logical conclusion then the US should not have F15 or F16 or F22.
The logic of this argument will be dictated by aircraft numbers. The 2 CVF can only ever carry 72 F35 between them. This is IF we can man them both and without an LPH replacement at the expense of rotary wing spots.
If we are going to have a FJ fleet of 150 plus then the cheaper F35a with a longer range and bigger weapon bays which will have complete commonality with many allies is the obvious choice for a fleet of that size and a UK that operates a 1.5 type FJ fleet.
@ x
Yes x it does run both ways and i am with you 100/140 f35b and typhoon is the right mix and i am not to happy that the raf will be losing the 50 odd first batch of typhoon i really do think that we as a nation should have at least 250 or more front line fighter jets 50/60 faa the rest raf but i just think that there is no public support in the armed services and that is the crux of the problem 100 f35b or keeping 2 to 3 hospitals open which way will it go we have more chance of 100 preadtor drones than 100 f35b
@ APATS
But to use two often proffered points here, we aren’t the US and we can’t do everything. Comparing our position now to the situation the US was in when F15 and F16 were purchased is a bit of stretch. To be honest my position on F35a’s worth probably came about through my readings on Boyd and his work. And yes the F35a has a bigger bomb bay but in these days where collateral damage is the ultimate taboo and the increasing capabilities of surfaces launched missiles and artillery rounds, well does that few feet make any difference in the grand scheme of things? Probably not. As for range well seeing as Tornado can’t go anywhere without tankers, so again does the 100nm difference in combat range make all that difference? Um. And if that 100nm is such a handicap where does that leave strike when flown off CVF? Or are you suggesting if there is a need for strike when CVF goes to war they fly in F35a and tankers onto a convenient field and then use them for the strike mission while CVF paddles up and down? Really? You are aren’t you? All because of a 100nm difference in range. PGM artillery, missiles, UAV, and AH are all eating in the FJ’s work load. For strike missions the cruise missile is eating in to the FJ’s work load. QRA is no use if somebody launches 200 cruise missiles at the UK and the chances of a bomber raid on the UK are well remote. So the question is do we really need 150 FJ? Probably not. So as I said FJ numbers will probably brought down to mirror Typhoon numbers which will be about 100. Now as I said we are then down 100 jets with a smaller work load only half of which can be flown off CVF. The latter, naval air, probably being the one growth area in manned aviation at the moment. 100 F35b is cheap than 100 F35a and 50 or F35b.
@ Dan
I am a bit passed seeing this purely in terms of the RAF or FAA. I am more interested in value for money and realistic expectations of what FJ will be doing in the next 30 years.
@ x
Ok can you really see the raf spending most of there time on a carrier ? What makes commen sense is often the first thing to go when it comes to our armed services just look at the joint harrier force and do you think that for one min that raf are going to acept that they are going to have just 20 to 30 aircraft at home when we go in to another american sponsed war just imgine the headline in the papers then what follows will be some cleaver dick mp will say what do we need the raf for the navy does most of what the raf do and the army can do the rest and then the call will be disband the raf no x no 100 to 140 f35b because the politics will get in the way the best we can hope for is what is on order with what is in service and hopfully public support turns so we can turely hsve the armed services we need and funded for
X,
So instead of QRA we should have? Multiple SAM sites covering every important target in the country?
And yes the F35a has a bigger bomb bay but in these days where collateral damage is the ultimate taboo and the increasing capabilities of surfaces launched missiles and artillery rounds, well does that few feet make any difference in the grand scheme of things?
Yes, the weapon either fits in the bay or it does not, it can either be carried or it cannot. Most weapon systems do not come in a “slightly smaller 2 door range”. The F35B will have weapons developed for it and the F35A will be able to carry them, then there will be weapons the F35A can carry the B cannot.
As for range well seeing as Tornado can’t go anywhere without tankers, so again does the 100nm difference in combat range make all that difference?
Yes it allows an extra 100Nm to be flown without tanking, it offer the ability to keep your tanker further from hostile air space and offers more mission flexibility to operational planners.
Or are you suggesting if there is a need for strike when CVF goes to war they fly in F35a and tankers onto a convenient field and then use them for the strike mission while CVF paddles up and down? Really? You are aren’t you?
NO, I am suggesting that having both options increases tactical and strategic flexibility. We could use F35A for strike from say “Qatar” in a certain scenario whilst using F35b as a decoy to tie up enemy air defences or vice versa.
QRA is no use if somebody launches 200 cruise missiles at the UK and the chances of a bomber raid on the UK are well remote. So the question is do we really need 150 FJ? Probably not. So as I said FJ numbers will probably brought down to mirror Typhoon numbers which will be about 100.
That is the premise of your argument, that you belive that we will reduce the FJ fleet from 200 plus down to 100 and that is an entirely flawed premise for a variety of reasons, internal politics, military opinion and the fact that we would almost reach a stage where it was too small to be substainable.
Bear in mind that we coped in Libya and in Afghanistan without Carrier air. Carrier air will be a very useful arrow in our quiver but it is complimentary to land based air in the overall strategy not mutually exclusive and certainly not some sort of “silver bullet”.
I try to be realistic when looking to the future and the bottom line is the F35B is far too expensive and complex to be the RAF’s sole fighter jet, and more than that id say their just isn’t a justifiable need.
It’s important to seek flexibility and cooperation within the services, but their is still a limit to how standardised and interoperable units and they’re equipment can be.
I agree with APATS that you can’t justify 150+ jets on the basis of being carrier capable when the reality is that even in the most extreme and highly unlikely scenario only 72 could be embarked. Far more realistically we would have 1 carrier fully loaded with 36 of them or 2 carriers fielding around 50 but with additional helicopters alongside.
I believe it’s highly likely that we will see a sizeable number of F35A replacing Typhoon in the distant future once Typhoon has put in some decent service.
As I posted earlier I think the only other question is whether 48 F35B will be it for that side of things? Are the RAF going to get the money and political backing to keep the numbers up, or are we going to see a slip below a total of 160 airframes?
A 1.5 fleet, as APATS suggesting is good enough for me!
P.S
I’ll be diplomatically frugal and scale back my ambitions by saying that I would accept 80 F35A and 50 F35B as an absolute minimal force.
TD keeps saying he is working on a new F35 post, can’t wait to read what he makes of it all!
Personally i would like the uk to team up with the sweedes and produce next gen fighter at least we will not be so reliant on the us i also think that steath has run its course i don’t think ucav has much of a futrue just my personal veiw could be completey wrong