Britain’s Royal Air Force chief talks F-35 tally and divesting equipment
Thread Starter
Britain’s Royal Air Force chief talks F-35 tally and divesting equipment
I don't think this has been mentioned here.
ACM Wigston gave an interviiew, in the light of the Integrated Review, to Defense News when in Washington last month:
Video and print versions here:https://www.defensenews.com/intervie...ing-equipment/
The print version is a tidied up version of the video. Nothing unexpected, but an engaged and measured performance setting a positive but realistic tone. Covers F-35, E-7, Tempest and Mosquito, and some wider questions.
F-35B numbers need to be sufficient to operate both carriers with out subjecting the force to strain.
"That profound change in our freedom of operation and our requirement to compete for control of the air ... is the greatest concern for any air chief at the start of the 2020s"
A few highlights:
ACM Wigston gave an interviiew, in the light of the Integrated Review, to Defense News when in Washington last month:
Video and print versions here:https://www.defensenews.com/intervie...ing-equipment/
The print version is a tidied up version of the video. Nothing unexpected, but an engaged and measured performance setting a positive but realistic tone. Covers F-35, E-7, Tempest and Mosquito, and some wider questions.
F-35B numbers need to be sufficient to operate both carriers with out subjecting the force to strain.
"That profound change in our freedom of operation and our requirement to compete for control of the air ... is the greatest concern for any air chief at the start of the 2020s"
A few highlights:
Realignment and changed focus
“capability vs. capacity”: There’s an opportunity now for us to reframe that narrative of “it’s a choice between mass and technology.” I think you can have both.
Organization and Manning: Everything tells me we’re going to need different skills into the future. ... The workforce is going to have to change, and it’s going to have to change quickly, probably faster than we have changed our workforce and our professional skill base in the past.
F-35
We are committing to growing the fleet and we’re going to continue to grow the fleet. And in that regard, nothing has changed. We’ve had discussions with the F-35 Joint Program Office and Lockheed Martin this year, and decisions are to be made next year about the next batch of aircraft that we will buy. We have now established two squadrons: a training unit and a front-line squadron. I’m looking to establish a third squadron, and I think I need at least three, probably four squadrons worth of F-35Bs to work off the carriers. But as I say, this is still a force that we’re growing. And we are going to be operating these platforms for potentially 50 years. So I’m not in any hurry to get to any final figure in the short term. And we will just make sure that we’ve got a force that is sustainable through the life of HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales.
B v A
“Never say never.” But that’s a decision for the future, and that’s something that perhaps my successor will come back to.
But there is no question that for the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy, our focus right now is on building sufficient F-35Bs that we can operate from our two carriers, and not be trying to do it with too few aircraft and too few people and putting unnecessary strain on the force.
...
I think I need at least three, probably four squadrons worth of F-35Bs to work off the carriers.
But as I say, this is still a force that we’re growing. And we are going to be operating these platforms for potentially 50 years. So I’m not in any hurry to get to any final figure in the short term. And we will just make sure that we’ve got a force that is sustainable through the life of HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales.
E-7
As far as the numbers are concerned, yes, working with a fleet of three is going to have its limitations. I think anybody would recognize that. But there’s scope for working with NATO, there’s scope for working with the United States Air Force as we operate as allies around the world. And I think the connectivity of the Royal Air Force’s E-7 fleet in the future and our ability to work with allies will make up for any shortfalls in capacity in the short term.
"Do you want to get that fleet back up to five planes?"
Well, I think that’s an option, and I certainly wouldn’t rule it out. As it stands at the moment, the announcement and the plan is for three, and of course we can make that work.
“capability vs. capacity”: There’s an opportunity now for us to reframe that narrative of “it’s a choice between mass and technology.” I think you can have both.
Organization and Manning: Everything tells me we’re going to need different skills into the future. ... The workforce is going to have to change, and it’s going to have to change quickly, probably faster than we have changed our workforce and our professional skill base in the past.
F-35
We are committing to growing the fleet and we’re going to continue to grow the fleet. And in that regard, nothing has changed. We’ve had discussions with the F-35 Joint Program Office and Lockheed Martin this year, and decisions are to be made next year about the next batch of aircraft that we will buy. We have now established two squadrons: a training unit and a front-line squadron. I’m looking to establish a third squadron, and I think I need at least three, probably four squadrons worth of F-35Bs to work off the carriers. But as I say, this is still a force that we’re growing. And we are going to be operating these platforms for potentially 50 years. So I’m not in any hurry to get to any final figure in the short term. And we will just make sure that we’ve got a force that is sustainable through the life of HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales.
B v A
“Never say never.” But that’s a decision for the future, and that’s something that perhaps my successor will come back to.
But there is no question that for the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy, our focus right now is on building sufficient F-35Bs that we can operate from our two carriers, and not be trying to do it with too few aircraft and too few people and putting unnecessary strain on the force.
...
I think I need at least three, probably four squadrons worth of F-35Bs to work off the carriers.
But as I say, this is still a force that we’re growing. And we are going to be operating these platforms for potentially 50 years. So I’m not in any hurry to get to any final figure in the short term. And we will just make sure that we’ve got a force that is sustainable through the life of HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales.
E-7
As far as the numbers are concerned, yes, working with a fleet of three is going to have its limitations. I think anybody would recognize that. But there’s scope for working with NATO, there’s scope for working with the United States Air Force as we operate as allies around the world. And I think the connectivity of the Royal Air Force’s E-7 fleet in the future and our ability to work with allies will make up for any shortfalls in capacity in the short term.
"Do you want to get that fleet back up to five planes?"
Well, I think that’s an option, and I certainly wouldn’t rule it out. As it stands at the moment, the announcement and the plan is for three, and of course we can make that work.
Last edited by SLXOwft; 13th May 2021 at 21:27. Reason: Correcting failure to check the results of my cut and paste activities.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Full interview in the link below. You missed out one of the most interesting replies however…..
https://www.defensenews.com/intervie...ing-equipment/
Could you see the U.K. shifting from buying the “B” model to the conventional “A” model?
Yes. It’s been a live topic over the years in the United Kingdom, and to that, I also say: “Never say never.” But that’s a decision for the future, and that’s something that perhaps my successor will come back to.….
https://www.defensenews.com/intervie...ing-equipment/
Could you see the U.K. shifting from buying the “B” model to the conventional “A” model?
Yes. It’s been a live topic over the years in the United Kingdom, and to that, I also say: “Never say never.” But that’s a decision for the future, and that’s something that perhaps my successor will come back to.….
Full interview in the link below. You missed out one of the most interesting replies however…..
https://www.defensenews.com/intervie...ing-equipment/
Could you see the U.K. shifting from buying the “B” model to the conventional “A” model?
Yes. It’s been a live topic over the years in the United Kingdom, and to that, I also say: “Never say never.” But that’s a decision for the future, and that’s something that perhaps my successor will come back to.….
https://www.defensenews.com/intervie...ing-equipment/
Could you see the U.K. shifting from buying the “B” model to the conventional “A” model?
Yes. It’s been a live topic over the years in the United Kingdom, and to that, I also say: “Never say never.” But that’s a decision for the future, and that’s something that perhaps my successor will come back to.….
I always supposed that A would be a non starter due to RAF having no boom refuelling capabilty.
What would the work around be?
It might be easier to get C and flambé it into a land based aircraft than to acquire A.
What would the work around be?
It might be easier to get C and flambé it into a land based aircraft than to acquire A.
Last edited by Trim Stab; 12th May 2021 at 18:39.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Trim_Stab,
LM have covered that possibility. They have advised that the space taken up by the boom on the B/C models is left unused on the A model (and presumably filled by a suitable weight), so that fitting a probe isn’t a problem if a customer requests it.
I presume that means the UARRSI is left in place, making the aircraft dual capable.
LM have covered that possibility. They have advised that the space taken up by the boom on the B/C models is left unused on the A model (and presumably filled by a suitable weight), so that fitting a probe isn’t a problem if a customer requests it.
I presume that means the UARRSI is left in place, making the aircraft dual capable.
Last edited by ORAC; 13th May 2021 at 11:06. Reason: Sp
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trim_Stab,
LM have covered that lint. They have advised that the space taken up by the boom on the B/C models is left unused on the A model (and presumably filled by a suitable weight), so that fitting a probe isn’t a problem if a customer requests it.
I presume that means the USRRSI is left in place, making the aircraft dual capable.
LM have covered that lint. They have advised that the space taken up by the boom on the B/C models is left unused on the A model (and presumably filled by a suitable weight), so that fitting a probe isn’t a problem if a customer requests it.
I presume that means the USRRSI is left in place, making the aircraft dual capable.
https://web.archive.org/web/20120818...a-on-the-f-35/
Q: There was another component kerfuffle about a variant of this airplane: Canada had a little political dustup awhile back because its aerial refueling tankers use the probe-and-drogue system for its CF-18 Hornets. In that setup, the tanker trails a basket and fighter extends its own probe to refuel. But Canada plans to buy F-35As, which were designed for the U.S. Air Force’s refueling system, in which a human operator aboard the tanker flies a boom into a port on the fighter – in this case, on the A’s spine, aft of the cockpit. So has Lockheed talked with Canada about buying Navy-model Cs, to keep the probe-and-drogue setup, or modifying its As?
A: O’Bryan: “We anticipated a number of the operators would want probe-and-drogue refueling in the F-35A and we kept that space empty on the F-35A to accommodate probe and drogue refueling. We‘ve done a number of studies – funded studies, not projects – funded studies to evaluate that, paid for by the countries who want that to happen. It’s a relatively easy … doable change.”
Although subsequently Canada said they would stick with the 'normal' A version and contract out AAR - and now looks as though they might not get the '35 anyway as it's being used as a bit of a political football.
