Why is the RAF buying the F-35?

[Modern Elmo]

Why is the RAF buying the F-35? And why is the RAF buying the VSTOL version of the F-35 instead of the conventional take off and landing version?

Export F-35 sales are good for the US economy, which is good. However, if I were British, I'd be asking why the Typhoon cannot be evolved into a multirole aircraft that can do air to ground as well as air to air, thereby making F-35 acquisition unnecessary.

And why buy the "jump jet" version? Does the RAF have the rather silly attitude of some PeePruners that take offs and landings `a la mode Harrier are some sort of deep profound, and indepensable British trait, akin to .... I dunno, bad teeth, fretting about class differences, and spanking fetishes.

I don't get it. The RAF would be better off with CTOL F-35's or maybe no F-35's whatsoever and improved, further developed Typhoons.

[Buster Hyman]

An interesting question ruined by a xenophobic rant in the middle. Perchance, your intent all along...:hmm:

[Modern Elmo]

The only good reason I can think of for the RAF to have jump-jet F-35's is to operate those aircraft from Royal Navy ships at times.

[pr00ne]

Modern Elmo,

A little research before one posts can do wonders you know.

The UK MOD IS buying the F-35C, not the VSTOL B. The RAF doesn't buy anything.

ANY F-35 sales are equally good for the UK economy, the UK being the only tier one partner, fully involved in the design from the outset, and with a good chunk of each aircraft designed and built by UK industry.

As to why the F-35 and why not a developed Typhoon. You could just as easily ask the same question of the US Government, why not develop a multi role version of the F-18, F-16, F-15 or F-22?

So, apart from wanting a state of the art sensor fused LO strike aircraft with a decent air to air capability, why are the US Marine Corps bothering with all this strange vertical take off nonsense of which you speak, as so far they are the only folk who have said that they will buy the B variant?

[Modern Elmo]

:=why not develop a multi role version of the F-18, F-16, F-15

Those aircraft are and have been multi-role. As to the air-superiority-only F-22A, you see what happened: a short production run, and thereafter seldom seen, except maybe at air shows. I suppose there may be a multi-role F-22B some day.

The Typhoon's longer-term future if it remains in its present state of under-development? The F-22A example.

As to the RAF F-35, look at RAF - F-35 (Joint Strike Fighter) (http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/f35jointstrikefighter.cfm). Is your Royal Air Force's web site out of date and incorrect?

... The JCA will place the RAF at the forefront of fighter technology and will give it a true multi-role air system that will surpass the majority of other weapons systems in production today ...

... The UK version will be a stealthy, multi-role, all-weather, day & night, fighter/attack air system aircraft that can operate from land bases and the next generation of aircraft carriers...

... Early production aircraft will be powered by a Pratt and Whitney F-135 turbofan engine,... Vertical lift and hover will be achieved by means of a Rolls-Royce developed lift-fan system. Doors installed above and below the vertical fan open as the fan powers up to provide vertical lift. This vertical lift is used in conjunction with the main engine exhaust nozzle at the rear of the aircraft, which swivels down from the horizontal to provide the required lift.

... The JCA will place the RAF at the forefront of fighter technology ( Faint praise there for Typhoon --Elmo ) and will give it a true multi-role air system that will surpass the majority of other weapons systems in production today, or envisaged in the foreseeable future. Coupled with the Typhoon aircraft, JCA will keep the RAF at the cutting edge of military aviation.

In real life, I've been summoned for jury duty tomorrow. If the accused person arouses my xenophobic emotions, I'll probably vote to convict 'em. :=

Good night, international friends.

[Load Toad]

Don't let the door bang your arse on the way out.

[Tallsar]

Well said Load Toad......but it would be more credible if the MoD, RN and RAF updated their websites on all the carrier/F35 articles...they are full of inaccuracies and it is a long time since the Oct SDSR announcements killing off the F35C purchase and a ski-jump CVF - all of which still feature prominently.:ugh:

[The Helpful Stacker]

As an Anglo-American can I just say that at times the ignornace displayed by those sharing either side of my dual nationality towards the other can be astonishing but in this case I'm utterly gobsmacked.

Perhaps under the influence of the local produce down there in redneck country?

[Red Line Entry]

Not quite sure why Modern Elmo was given such short shrift (although, off-topic, the bad teeth cliche has always puzzled me - with the NHS I'd suggest that, in particular, our poor generally have better teeth than America's poor)

Fundamentally, his question is sound, it just needs expanding - why are we buying JSF, instead of buying something that's not as cutting-edge, but is a lot more affordable?

If we're not careful, we'll end up ploughing a lot of money into the programme, see cost keep increasing and platform numbers keep decreasing, before finally having a future government that will announce that we can't afford it and so will cancel it.

MRA4 all over again.

[Mr C Hinecap]

If you don't understand the differences in how we are 'buying' the F-35, then you won't understand why this is apples and oranges.

We are 'buying' a number of flying hours per year - we are 'contracting for availability' rather than buying the aircraft. It is in effect a lease. It is incredibly complex and I only ever scratched the surface of it, but it is a totally new way of doing business. Compared to the cost of re-working Typhoon into something similar, it is a lot less effort for far more return of investment.

[Red Line Entry]

Hmmmm,

I'm a great fan of contracting for availability. However, let's not confuse the method of procurement with the product itself.

Is the product (or the capability, if you like), innately too compex and expensive for both our budget and our needs? We could use a CfA approach (or even CfC - Contracting for Capability) with virtually any aircraft out there (we already do it with legacy platforms such as Tornado). But the overall cost will be cheaper with a less expensive platform.

Thus I think the original question is still valid. We can either have lots of cheaper platforms, or fewer more expensive ones - have we been seduced too far down the high-tech route?

[ORAC]

Fundamentally, his question is sound, it just needs expanding - why are we buying JSF, instead of buying something that's not as cutting-edge, but is a lot more affordable? Buying a new type is inevitably more expesnive due to the need for training, spares etc. Therefore, if the MOD is buying the F-35 to man the carriers, then it is inevitable that any manned component of the the GR4 force replacement will be an F-35.

Whilst it is possible that component could be either the F-35A or F-35B, as opposed to the carrier F-35C, it is unlikely due to the increasingly small commonality in parts between them. The F-35A would also need to be modified for a probe for refuelling. Having a common type would also allow for reinforcement of the carrier force.

I also suspect that the original talked of buy of around 150, if purchsed, will be used for both roles.

I would also suspect that all the above is the subject of intense debate and unlikely to be resolved till after the SDSR review, or with the programme slips till a decision is needed after the next election.

As to the website, I can appreciate the problems in updating the information. Without even a decision that a change to the original planned is required, what can be changed?

[draken55]

F-35

Other threads exist on this forum that comment on the F-35. If it's been missed, readers should have a look at the "US To Stop Work On GE 35 Engines" one which has robust input.;)

[Heathrow Harry]

After Suez the british decided they had to stick close to the Yanks - the French decided that the opposite was a better idea

To stick close means supporting the USA diplomatically and militarily

The UK can't afford to field significant stand alone forces any longer so we are normally a junor partner to the Yanks - so we have to have interoperability with their kit.

So we have to buy what they are buying (or selling)

[Wrathmonk]

So we have to buy what they are buying (or selling)

I'm struggling on that comment - as this thread is about the F35, apart from the Phantom, which US fast jets have we bought since the Suez conflict? I would suggest we have partnered with Europe far more ....

Granted on the RW/heavy side we have invested in US products (Chinook / C17 / C130 / Sentinel / Sentry / Tri*) but even then this is balanced by the Puma / Wessex / VC10 / BAe146 / Nimrod / Belfast etc.

[flyingflea]

As others have said the MoD is no longer buying the STOVL version. Also they will be carrier based so does that mean the RN will be flying it?????

[LowObservable]

Local produce:

http://www.poster.net/anonymous/anonymous-jack-daniels-distillery-5000282.jpg

ME is misguided, but usually more on the ball that that.

[SSSETOWTF]

The RAF need the F-35 because it's a great bit of kit that can do things that Typhoon can't (and Typhoon can do things that F-35 can't).

In the 2020+ battlefield you'll expect (or at least you should plan for) things like SA-10, -11, -12, -15, -20 & HQ-9 and their derivatives floating around. Your air threat is likely to include all the Su-27 derivatives, or perhaps even J-20 / PAK-FA class aircraft with some pretty potent A-A missiles.

LO saves you time and money; it's for the same reasons that LGBs save you cash because 1 airplane can drop 1 bomb to kill a target, as opposed to the good old days when waves and waves of aircraft were needed to drop dozens and dozens of iron bombs to get the Pd up. If you're going into a nasty IADS of modern Russian/Chinese/French SAMs you can either use a package of dozens of F-18Gs and F-16CJs, with stand-off jammers & Rivet Joints etc. Or you use a couple of LO aircraft with some appropriate planning - which is what the F-117s were used for with great effect in Iraq. LO is not a panacea that will give the pilot total impunity in all future scenarios, but when well-managed it's an incredibly useful tool to have in the toolbox.

The airplane is much more than LO though, and its sensors are as 5th gen as the LO part is. No pilot flying with a current targeting pod such as Sniper or Litening 3 wants to go back to the good old days of Nitehawk or TIALD. And, for example, once pilots have flown with APG-81 they'll wonder how they ever got anything done with the current generation of radars out there (except the F-22 bubbas of course).

For the UK as a Level 1 partner, the airplanes are effectively free to buy to the UK taxpayer. For every pound we spend on the airplane, the UK Exchequer gets at least a pound back in industrial offsets. We buy 138 airframes, while the rest of the world buys 3000+ more and there are jobs for hundreds of workers for decades at BAE, Rolls, Martin Baker + literally hundreds of second and third tier suppliers. And all those companies pay tax on their profits to the Exchequer. The only downside is that the money comes out of the Defence budget and goes back into the NHS & Welfare budget pots...

So to me, the better question is why on earth should the UK consider pulling-out?

Regards,
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly!

[SSSETOWTF]

And Typhoons can't land on ships.

Yet (?)

[LeCrazyFrog]

if that was a car seller trying to sell you his latest toy, with all the gadgets you definitely need, and "oh!, for the check, don't worry, just sign it and I'll fill in the numbers"...plus you've just read that in a matter of years cars will be outdated as everybody will be "beamed" around the places...

You'd have hairs rising behind your neck....rightly so...
because IMHO, no matter you say it is not very convincing :

- you can argue whatever tech specs to justify the toy;
- you can flash out any buzzwords you like (CfA or CfC or whatever);
- you can argue you get back each and every pound you put in...

the matter of the fact is :
- the thing is a bloody endless black hole moneywise with nobody being able to give an approximation of how much is it going to cost;
- the growth capacity of current programs (F18, Rafale, Eurofighter) is big enough to cope with possible improvements for he next 2 or 3 decades;
- especially considering that in about that amount of time (plus/minus a decade) most missions will be performed by UAV/UCAVS and the lot.

Anyway, if I am wrong why is it that so many govts are reconsidering the program if it is such a sure bet??? Surely I am not the only one with hairs rising behind my neck...:=

[SSSETOWTF]

Last time I checked no one was trying to convince the French to buy F-35.

It's not an endless black hole. The airplane has over 1000 hours of flight test on it. Previous cost estimates have all been based on powerpoint, but current estimates are based on the real world and a growing body of evidence. So they're becoming higher fidelity and increasingly believable.

If you want to take your flight of Rafales into an S-400 missile engagement zone (S-400 SA-20 Triumf - Russia / Soviet Nuclear Forces (http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/airdef/s-400.htm) if you don't understand the buzzword) alone and unafraid, crack on. I'd rather be in an F-35 thanks very much.

A British MP rather famously pronounced the demise of manned fighters in 1957. Fifty+ years later, we're still waiting.

Regards,
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly

[draken55]

SSSETOWTF

It's worth pointing out that Duncan Sandys MP, as then Minister of Defence and author of the 1957 White Paper, decided to put his faith in technology but in the form of Missiles. They could not deliver.

Will the F-35 will do the job as advertised, and be affordable, on time and available in the numbers needed to ensure credible Royal Air Force and Fleet Air Arm usage?

[LeCrazyFrog]

Last time I checked no one was trying to convince the French to buy F-35.

I know, just trying to convince the brits to make the only sensible choice... buy Rafales ;) but I know they'd rather chew their balls rather than admit it...

It's not an endless black hole. The airplane has over 1000 hours of flight test on it. Previous cost estimates have all been based on powerpoint, but current estimates are based on the real world and a growing body of evidence. So they're becoming higher fidelity and increasingly believable.

If it is not, why so many people are increasingly looking at their wallets (and don't tell me it's the crisis...)

If you want to take your flight of Rafales into an S-400 missile engagement zone (S-400 SA-20 Triumf - Russia / Soviet Nuclear Forces if you don't understand the buzzword) alone and unafraid, crack on. I'd rather be in an F-35 thanks very much.


Odds of that...? (yes, I know you always have to be ready...) I'd rather have some planes that actually fly and which are able to shoot down some rusty Galebs... Haven't seen many F-22 flying around the ZEA...

Again... if it is such a sure bet...

[SSSETOWTF]

draken55,

A fine question, and only time will tell.

The USAF and USMC have gone 'all-in' on the F-35 Program - do you think they'll let it fail? If I were a betting man, I'd say not. With my polarized view of things, the internet's immense community of relatively ignorant F-35-bashers are akin to all the F-16-bashers of the early 1970s. Personally I think people made the right decision in proceeding with the F-16 program in the face of strong criticism over its cost growth, and in my opinion they're making the right decision to press on with F-35 now.

The LRIP1 aircraft are already flying. If the UK government really wanted the F-35 in Service asap, I'm pretty sure LM would take their money today and we could have F-35s in RAF/RN markings flying in 2-3 years. If the UK government chooses to spend their money on the NHS and welfare for the next 10 years that's their decision, but it's not a failing of the F-35 Program.

Affordability is a completely subjective criterion that every country will have to decide for itself. In my opinion there are a number of scenarios in which you can't afford to not have some F-35s up your sleeve.

Regards,
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly

[ORAC]

The LRIP1 aircraft are already flying. If the UK government really wanted the F-35 in Service asap, I'm pretty sure LM would take their money today and we could have F-35s in RAF/RN markings flying in 2-3 years. At a certain point reasonable advocacy turns into fantasy. You just past it. Get real.

[LowObservable]

What ORAC said.

Absolutely, seriously no way would you get useful capability in 2014. That's not from the F-35 "bashers" - who by the way have been predicting cost and schedule trends far more accurately than the Fort Worth suits or the JPO munchkins, for the past four years - but from the Technical Baseline Review, the first half-a$$ed-honest insider review of the program in 16 years.

And this "too big to fail" argument is beginning to get old. What "too big to fail" means is what it's always meant: redefine success to match what can actually be achieved. The program has already failed to deliver SDD on schedule, and failed to deliver SDD on cost. The overrun on SDD is in the same order of magnitude as the entire A400M program including 170-plus production airframes.

GAO and Navair have both projected that the program will also fail to deliver on operating costs (which were originally supposed to be lower than F-16, then redefined to equal, but now look a lot higher) and GAO and CAPE have predicted that it will fail on acquisition costs, in the process gutting every other US aircraft program in sight.

Did Gates put the F-35B on probation, and did UK MoD walk away from it and scupper one of its carriers, because they believed what a cranky Anglo-American journalist and three OCD Australian bloggers told them? Or because what they were finally hearing out of TBR was not (by a million miles) the same happy horse**** they'd been fed for the previous decade? Because the TBR said that it was too soon to tell whether or not the F-35B effort would fail to yield a practical airplane at any reasonable price?

Affordability is not a subjective criterion, unless you're Bill Gates buying groceries. Most of the export customers are dealing at best with a fixed budget ceiling. Unit price up, numbers down, until eventually the political leaders ask, quite sensibly, what you plan to do with a force that's so small that you can't deploy with a coalition, maintain homeland defense and sustain the force at the same time. Goodbye air force.

By the way, for the all-wise supporters of the F-35, a lot of the F-16 criticisms of the 1970s were right. It was and is a good design - but what saved it from being another F-5E or F-104 was Moore's Law, which neither critics nor proponents saw coming.

[SSSETOWTF]

Ok, before you guys screw yourselves into the ceiling, go back and read what I wrote. I said you could 'have F-35s in RAF/RN markings flying in 2-3 years'. Based on the fact that we signed for our LRIP-3 aircraft mid-09 and they're coming off the line early next year, it's not a huge logical error to assume that if we signed up for LRIP-5 or -6 jets, they'd arrive 2-3 years after contract signing.

They wouldn't be full ORD-compliant Block 3 aircraft, but a Block 2B F-35 is no slouch which is why the USMC say they are content to declare IOC with them. I could write 'succeeded' in bold a few times but it wouldn't change your opinion and I'm afraid you won't change mine. I've flown the airplane a fair bit and I've flown a few others too over the years. I assume I'd know you if you had too. If I were off to war tomorrow I know what my preferred airplane to fly would be.

How can affordability be anything other than subjective? Some people choose to live in a council house and drive a Mercedes, others live in stately homes and drive a Fiat Punto. Some countries choose to spend 3-4% GDP on defence, others choose to spend 1% or less. If the UK envisages a need to operate in airspace defended by the latest Russian, Chinese or French SAM systems or A-A fighters, then it will need to cough up the cash - I don't think the F-35 unit cost is ever going to exceed the annual UK tax intake. If it chooses to spend all its money on the NHS and consequently not be able to afford hundreds of F-35s, that's an entirely subjective choice.

Regards,
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly

[Willard Whyte]

I fully support the decision to purchase Dave-C.

What I don't see the point of is letting the RAF having a go with it, let the Navy have full 'ownership'.

And no, I'm RAF not RN.

[LowObservable]

Seriously, SSSETOWTF, I agree that you could paint any markings you like on an LRIP and get the UK to pay for it.

No, I don't think that it would be a "go-to-war" airplane, and neither (apparently) does Adm Venlet. Hence the actions taken in TBR. Certainly, the USAF appears to be definite in its views of what it takes to declare IOC.

Your comments reflect the attitude of many JSF supporters. Having oversold their ability to deliver, and underbid the price - that is fact, not opinion - they are now arguing that there is no alternative and the punters have no option but to cough up - "I don't think the F-35 unit cost is ever going to exceed the annual UK tax intake" - or see the money spent so far go to waste.

That strikes me as more than a little arrogant.

[tonker]

The constant problem appears to be that the procurement program is always geared up to take on a 1st world military force. What we end up with is a buggered up contract delivering too little gear that usually is second best to off the shelf kit, that was readily available in the first place.

There should be a minimum number of kit required, and we should then purchase according to our budget, and buy off the shelf.(and stay at home and mind our own business)

[Red Line Entry]

SSSETOWTF has it right. If you're going to go up against, effectively, a 'superpower' (China/Russia/USA) that can afford an integrated multiple-battalion SA-20 ADS, then B2/F35/F22 is what you want.

But the lesson that still hasn't been hammered home since the fall of the wall is that our demonstrated need in the last 2 decades has NOT been for this level of capability. Yes, we'd all love to have it, but not at the expense of ridiculously low numbers of platforms.

Complete WAG here, but what are we likely to pay and what are we likely to get? Say £6Bn in procurement & development costs to receive a fleet of 60-70? Say 10-15 FE@R? Effectively no more than 3 deployable sqns? And while I take the point about economic benefit, such an arrangement could be constructed for ANY future procurement, thus the question of underlying cost is relevant, particularly within a constrained Defence funding envelope.

Aston Martins are wonderful cars - but sometimes all you need is a Ford Transit.

[draken55]

Red Line Entry

Aside from the war against a "superpower" issue, the other one is that HMG still wants to maintain the strategic capability to build the most complex military equipment "in house".

We know there is a plan in force for Nuclear Submarines and Surface Warships but as SSSETOWTF indicated, the F-35 seems to have become the only manned FJ programme with a future post 2020 and substantial UK involvement.

SSSETOWTF also made the point about the choice being between deploying a package of aircraft with stand-off jammers & Rivet Joints etc or a couple of LO aircraft with some appropriate planning" We seem to have decided to be go down the latter route with the inevitable result that the manned FJ element of our Air Force/Navy will be smaller and use LO and/or Typhoon and/or with UAV's.:ooh:

[LowObservable]

RLE and Draken...

The F-35 advocates may be correct in saying that there are threats against which the jet's level of LO may be effective, and where a Typhoon or Rafale can't go without a lot of support and/or with high risk. But there are a few points beyond that.

Such threats (double digit SAMs, for instance) will never be ubiquitous or cover the entire airspace.

They may evolve to the level where even an F-35 will not get it, drop a JDAM and get out again.

As we have seen, going downtown against fixed heavily defended targets is not the only fighter mission, and there are others where LO is not relevant or barely so.

The Euros all recognized the value of LO for heavily defended targets, which is why we have Storm Shadow/SCALP and Taurus. Back in the day of a $35 million, lower-then-F-16-operating-cost JSF you could argue that this was a more expensive solution. In 2018, who knows - and in the 2020s you can add the VLO UCAV option.

[ICBM]

To be honest you can argue for both sides - it's like watching Henman play tennis.... quite boring! The thread's been done [almost] to death now and there are those firmly 'For' and those firmly 'Against' spouting the same hyperbole every time. The reality is that HMG has looked at the balance sheet and carefully considered their equipment programme; for now at least, JCA is still in it for the forseeable but lets see what factors are present for the next SDSR. MoD has reviewed the costs, looked at the predicted cost-curve and through-life sustainment figures with some scrutiny and balanced the whole lot against extant (yes, extant!)capability requirements for a 5th Gen air system.

Sure, the UK economy needs to tighten its belt but I for one believe we made the right move to go F-35C for all sorts of reasons; I couldn't agree more with SSSETOWTF on the supporting rationale for LO and high-end sensor dominance either - some of the single, most effective battlefield enablers of the last 10 years have been sensor-derived data and networked SA. F-35C brims with both.

Such threats (double digit SAMs, for instance) will never be ubiquitous or cover the entire airspace.


Duff statement chap; such threats only have to be where you don't want them vice everywhere so, while you have the good fortune to sit in your armchair, enthusiastically peering at the World's first 100% accurate crystal ball you might consider that the rest of us military folk don't - hence we prepare for what our 'Int' tells us, not the likes of you. My point is that today's 'Aston Martin' threat system becomes cheaper, more prolific and still as effective as the years go by.

They may evolve to the level where even an F-35 will not get it, drop a JDAM and get out again.

Yup, and the plan is that F-35 will evolve to keep pace, or even out-pace those threats. JDAM is 'so' last year too. F-35 plans to offer the same growth capacity that F-16 has given since its inception. You can only polish a turd so far and unfortunately for the next 25 years F-16 and F-18 will reach their respective zeniths' of reflectivity (read Nadir of usefulness) well before that time is up. F-18 roadmaps that spout anything different are just keeping Boeing's shareprice up just so you can replace that well-worn armchair of yours; it keeps Elmo stocked for Jack too. I do remember Boeing believing in the concept of 5th gen manned fighters too...and a competition....oops!

So to answer the thread title....'because we are..... and it doesn't concern you...so there!'

[The Helpful Stacker]

I do remember Boeing believing in the concept of 5th gen manned fighters too...and a competition....oops!


Hmmm, the X-32.:yuk:

What is that saying about an aircraft 'looking right'?

[SSSETOWTF]

Systems like the SA-10 are already proliferating around the world. For open source, try - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-300_(missile) - and scroll down to see which countries have them, or are thought to be trying to get them. It includes old favourites such as Iran, Syria, Serbia, and Libya amongst others. When a system is as mobile as the SA-10 a country doesn't have to have very many at all before lots of pilots of 4th Gen airplanes are going to have trouble clearing their ears on the first night of the next Op. And it can be pretty hard (and expensive) to target them with cruise missiles if the SAM operator knows what he's doing.

To go back to LowObservable's earlier points:

Venlet, as the PEO, is required to ensure LM deliver an ORD-compliant Block 3 aircraft on budget. TBR was an excellent exercise for him to open all the cupboards, air all the skeletons and blame anything and everything on his predecessors. You can rest assured that he is staking his career on the price and timeline in the results of the TBR so in his mind it's as accurate as it can possibly be. But he doesn't tell the Services or Partners when they can or can't declare IOC. The USAF have squadrons of F-22s, Block 50 F-16s, Rivet Joints, JSTARS etc and are prepared to wait until Block 3 is full-up until they declare IOC. The USMC with their tired fleets of AV-8Bs and legacy F-18s have a much greater degree of urgency and, after careful analysis of the Block 2B capabilities, are content that it is enough to be going on with. The UK can make their own choice on what constitutes IOC. A Block 2B F-35 will have more air-ground capability than one RAF aircraft currently on Ops over Libya has right now.

It may be arrogant to say that there is no alternative. Or it may just be true. So what is the alternative you're proposing? Trying to reverse engineer stealth characteristics into existing platforms? I'm no LO design expert, but in my very limited knowledge you need things like aligned edges, an absolute minimum of very carefully designed protuberances - scoops, holes, air data probes, aerials, fuel dump pipes etc, a carefully designed sub-structure, bendy intakes to conceal your engine face, some magic around the back end to hide your jetpipe, an embedded targeting pod built into the airframe, an AESA radar if you don't have one already and the application of easily maintainable coatings + many more. There's a fair bit more to it than putting on some conformal fuel tanks and bolting on a stealthy weapons pod. By the time you've spent all the money to do that, wouldn't you just prefer to have a purpose-built, brand new airplane that's at the beginning of its growth cycle? (and in the UK's case, to be a Level 1 partner in the manufacture of lots and lots of those new airplanes so they almost come for free)

And finally, before I go down the pub for the night, it's well known that there are fighter missions that don't require stealth. F-35 was explicitly designed for them too. When you've cleaned out all the nasty threats, you bolt on the 6 external pylons and the gun, add some double ejector racks and play to your heart's content, in an airplane that gives you more SA than you've ever dreamed was possible - an APG-81, EOTS, DAS, L16 etc and all shared at very high data rates over MADL with all your coalition buddies in their F-35s too.

Regards,
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly!

[Thelma Viaduct]

Another point:

The UK has only just recently shown that it won't act unilaterally against a foe which could be described as 'shoddy' at best. We would rather stand behind the big boys and get involved once the adversary was down and out.

So it begs the question, if we've not got the balls to attack even Libya on our tod (or until the rats in parliament get approval from the 'tards), when will we ever need the capabilities offered by F35 to attack a country with half decent kit???

Just give the spams a call and ask for some of their 'unique capabilities', they don't even need an excuse to go to war, they love killing and maiming and they're very good at it too !!!! :ok:

If you require deep strike in the future, get FOAS-CALCM off the back burner, **** the spams.

[Willard Whyte]

No, **** europe.

[Modern Elmo]

Hello British friends:

I have been released from jury duty after only two days, instead of a week or so. The defendant was a pink-cheeked and blue-eyed, twenty-six year old fellow with an Anglo-sounding first and last name. His last name rhymes with "Burner." Maybe he has some distant relatives in ye Olde Country. Maybe some of his distant relatives post on PeePrune. I dunno.

Relatives over there or not, Mr. *urner was was revealed to be a villain. This tends to confirm my opinion that most peepul, including most white peepul, are no damned good.

... as SSSETOWTF indicated, the F-35 seems to have become the only manned FJ programme with a future post 2020 and substantial UK involvement.

So, what will the future of Typhoon be circa 2020?

[hanoijane]

F 35's for the RAF?

Too much technology, too few airframes.

[ORAC]

So, what will the future of Typhoon be circa 2020?

With the expectation that Tranche 3B will be cancelled, and unless any additional overseas orders materialise, then production will cease at the end of Tranche 3A in 2016. Even with a limited overseas order it will finish before 2020.

Typhoon, understanding the Tranches and Blocks (http://www.fast-air.co.uk/typhoon-block-tranche-summary/)

[LowObservable]

There are two issues that dominate the fighter business today. Between them, they determine the future of every program outside China and Russia.

The first is the future of JSF. The TBR has taken a good deal of risk out of the SDD schedule (allowing certain bumptious idiots to blather about being "ahead of schedule") but there are, today, no authentic estimates for procurement cost, because there isn't an approved procurement program. The original (2001) approval to start the SDD and LRIP phases, Milestone B, was rescinded last year after the Nunn-McCurdy breach.

At some point, however, there has to be a real, SecDef-approved estimate for costs, and there is a possibility that such costs will be (1) too high for the US to procure in planned numbers and (2) much higher than politicians and military leaders in most of the partner countries had promised. The result will be a "death spiral", with a further increase in costs and cut in numbers. There is another elephant, too, in the shape of operating costs.

The second is India. They have the money and the will to buy a fighter, and whichever one they choose gets a new lease on life, and likely becomes JSF's main competitor. The only exceptions are the F-16I and MiG-35, considered as outsiders.

[ICBM]

Sorry LO, title of this thread is 'Why is the RAF buying the F-35?' not 'The Future of F-35' or 'India's Fighter Procurement Aspirations'. There are other old threads for such non-objective analyses.

Many, pre-PAK FA/J-20, would have also said:

F-22 for the USAF?
Too much technology, too few airframes.

Perhaps not any more.....

So, what will the future of Typhoon be circa 2020?


Likely won't see many (if any) post 2030. Tranche 3 (sans AESA) will find itself towards the back of the pack 2020-2030.

[LowObservable]

ICBM - I was responding re. the future of Typhoon and should have made myself clearer.

Fact is, we don't know what anyone's future looks like until the two issues I mentioned have been resolved.

[Modern Elmo]

we don't know what anyone's future looks like until the two issues I mentioned have been resolved.

Yes, the military-industrial complex awaits your verdict.

... A question about the Meteor missile: how much British domestic content does it have?

[LowObservable]

Yes, the military-industrial complex awaits your verdict.

Seriously, what is the point of that comment?

[Modern Elmo]

April 5, 2011, 1:13 PM ET.

“Let Them Eat Fighter Jets!”: GOP Cuts Spare Defense.

By Avi Salzman

Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-Wisc.) proposed budget plan would cut $5.8 trillion from the budget in the next decade, upending Medicare and Medicaid and gutting many social programs. But Ryan’s budget treads lightly in a few other areas, including defense.

Ryan’s 2012 budget essentially accepts the president’s proposal for a $553 billion defense budget and $117 billion in spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It also adheres to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates’ plan to cut $178 billion from the budget over the next five years, writes Citi analyst Jason Gursky in a note out today.

“In our view, this supports our thesis that defense budgets are not about to face dramatic declines given what appears to be bipartisan support for Sec. Gates’ savings initiatives,” Gursky writes.
...

“Let Them Eat Fighter Jets!”: GOP Cuts Spare Defense - Stocks To Watch Today - Barrons.com (http://blogs.barrons.com/stockstowatchtoday/2011/04/05/let-them-eat-fighter-jets-gop-cuts-spare-defense/?mod=BOLBlog)


In other words, all three versions of F-35 continue.

[LowObservable]

In other words, the fact that bad news (that nobody expected or predicted) has not come about is presented by F-35 fan as a vindication of the program.

Elsewhere, the news that SDD is (for the first time) not falling further behind the already-five-years-late schedule is being greeted with relief-of-Mafeking scenes of jubilation.

To avoid failure, reinvent success!