A thought on external tanks, if the F-35 makes 1000nm+ straight line on internals (and I have heard it is considerably more) external tanks only really make sense for ferry flying. That means going high and carrying 8000lb of fuel in the tanks up to 30K'. In itself that takes a lot of fuel. Now consider the drag of 2 x 500gal tanks, and the fuel required to overcome that drag, for the climb to 30K' and for the 1000nm+ where the jugs are not required. Adding all that up means the additional range from the tanks is not nearly as far as most would assume - certainly much less than 8000/cruise fuel flow * cruise speed. Even with 'coke bottle' area ruled low drag tanks the additional range for an F-35 type aircraft might only be 100 or 200nm.

Is it worth spending the money to develop and test the tanks for such a small increase in ferry range? I'm assuming the jet has some wet pylons, so tanks could be fitted at some point in the future, but I guess for the current roles there is no real justification.

On the spares support front, it would be beneficial to understand how the F-35 'autonomic logistics' actually system works before deciding if multiple operating bases would be a benefit or impediment.

Phil

This is an interesting point.
Na, just fudge it.

PhilipG,

Majority (58%) of F-35 maintainers aboard carriers will be RAF; the same percentage as the pilots operating them. All light blue will be fully trained to operate aboard a carrier - full flood damage control duties, firefighting and emergency procedures as well.

For the the "mixed buy", the specifics of how spare parts pertinent to each type are segregated and managed are yet to be finalized, so it is too early to speculate on what that will look like, especially as there is time to work it all out.

Unfortunately for that "plan" all the "RAF" maintainers that I have spoken to have no intention of either embarking or remaining around to be made to do so.

So on top of all the other costs you are going to have train a entire new generation of maintainers, if, if you can entice them in the first place.

Now what was that about experience levels?

Like many things Glad Rag, the iceberg won't falter for the whims of a few snowflakes. In this case, those I speak to on a regular basis have every intention of embarking. If they wish to leave, they will be replaced and you make a great final point about experience. If our experience levels dilute because of a unionist movement of land-lubbers only willing to serve on their own terms, well, frankly, the Service is better off without them in the long run.

It would be better for UK Defence to recruit 'airmen' who want a varied and interesting career both ashore and, when needed, at sea. Our new recruits sign up understanding a career on Lightning will involve time at sea.

I fear the unionists in this case are old codgers like you, with a chip on both shoulders. Of course, I may be wrong. You might actually be a genuine, serving airman in the RAF Eng branch who has seen his Service change too much for his own liking.

All the services are having trouble getting people - rhe RN is dependent on "volunteers" from the US Coast Guard to serve as engineers on a number of service vessels

I wouldn't be too sure they 'll be able to get the people they need for the carriers TBH

Well said that man

Back in the fridge with you!

You were doing fairly well until the ad hominem, if that's your response all I can say is that I'm not from Birmingham.

I'm sure you can work it out if you try.

Interesting stream of replies.

As I understand what has been said, there will now be two streams of RAF maintainer training, one for non F35B maintainers and one for F35B maintainers, with probably different terms and conditions of service.

Obviously this discussion could also apply to Chinooks teams as well.

Errr, no.......

I really don't think it is fair to impugn the motives and character ( " ...Landlubbers only willing to serve on their own terms....)" of those who did not expect to go to sea when they joined the RAF. We have three services, each with their own conditions of service and we freely choose which to join depending on what appeals to us. How would our heroic aircrew and maintainers of the RN feel about spending six months of each year in a trench with the infantry?

Pretty much exactly the same way they would feel about spending 6 months in the desert, but you rarely hear people dripping about 'I didn't join the Navy to live in a tent in a land locked country'.

To me the obvious solution is to let the RN do carrier flying in total. This won't happen over night, but a starting point would be a MoU that when the F35A has been built up to significant numbers, F35Bs will xfer to the RN. It worked ok for the Merlins.

The one point that I will agree with MSOCS is that there really isn't any excuse for winging about going to sea. The RAFhave been embarking now since the mid 90s. I think it would be reasonable to understand that in a time of dwindling resources, if you're on the SH Force or LII force you're going to go to sea. Likewise RN maintainers should expect to deploy to overseas land bases....which they do and amazingly just seem to get on with it.

Or how would embarked RAF and Army feel about being encouraged to buy a house close to their MOB, and never be posted away from it on the grounds that you'll have a stable home for your family to return to in between cruises.

I'm sure it would never catch on.

I'm not sure that "iceberg" is a good metaphor for anything involving very large ships. Neither has involuntary service at sea been regarded as great idea, at least since the era of Nelson.

OK, orders are orders, if you can't take a joke you shouldn't have joined, and all that jazz. But it would be nice to see planning reflect reality, which is that recruitment and retention of people with the right talent mix is always a challenge for any organization.

That's why it's not just PC, but CS, to not maintain arbitrary bans on certain groups of people. And it's also the case that if you make the environment less desirable - if you want a future in FJs you may find yourself effectively in the RN - you either pay more or get less than you otherwise would have done. And no amount of banging on about unionist land-lubber snowflakes changes that fact.

Ok George, fair points. I still maintain that that whatever Glad Rag has evinced from those he has spoken to within the RAF maintainer community do not represent the general view. Let me reiterate that those RAF I speak with, fully understand the implications of serving in the Lightning Force. I think an equilibrium will eventually be achieved; for instance, those who would have joined the RN to go to sea, but perhaps prefer many aspects of an RAF career may, in future, choose the latter because the Lightning Force can offer what they wish.

Glad Rag - don't get the Birmingham reference sorry (Cosford?). As for the "ad hominem" I apologise if the entire two preceding paragraphs seemed a set-up to personally attack you. It was not the intent, as I really don't have an ounce of emotional investment in such things. Unless of course, you and I run into each other in our professional lives. Perhaps a beer or two could begin to solve our different opinions on the F-35. Who knows!