Slightly Stale News

On 6 January MDBA announced receiving a £550 million contract for production of SPEAR3 "the main medium-to-long-range strike weapon of the UK F-35 combat aircraft, enabling them to defeat challenging targets such as mobile long-range air defence systems at over-the-horizon ranges in all weathers and in highly contested environments." Production scheduled for 2023.

Press release here:
https://www.mbda-systems.com/press-r...ruise-missile/

I am interested in seeing if the SEAD version gets taken up for the UK's F-35s, seems a sensible idea to have missile(s) in the networked swarm that can jam enemy sensors when not mounted on a manned or remotely piloted aircraft. Especially if the other missiles are intending to take out the ground AD systems.

"The core of SPEAR-EW’s payload is Leonardo’s advanced, miniaturised Digital Radio Frequency Memory (DRFM) technology, which offers the most advanced and future-proof electronic jamming and deception available on the market today."
(Source: https://www.mbda-systems.com/press-releases/17630/)

But at what cost. If the economy of scale of the F35 programme cannot yield a cost effective product, how does he know that some other product would??

Exactly - the F-35 was supposed to be purchasable in large numbers but by the time it came into service...

you always get mission creep, gold plating, nice to have add-ons - it suits the USAF /USN and it suits the defence contractors and teh politicians in Congress

I read somewhere that SPEAR requires the Block 4 upgrade. Perhaps that is not true. Then I read that 1 upgrade costs millions. I see the Lockheed Martin business model now.....

https://www.defensenews.com/global/m...on-f-35-sales/

Just hours before Biden’s inauguration, the UAE and US come to a deal on F-35 sales

WASHINGTON —The United Arab Emirates on Jan. 20 signed off on a deal to purchase up to 50 F-35 joint strike fighter aircraft and 18 MQ-9 Reaper drones from the United States.

According to Reuters, which broke the news, the agreement was one of the final acts of the Trump administration, occurring just an hour before President Joe Biden was inaugurated.

A source with knowledge of the situation confirmed separately to Defense News that the U.S. and UAE officials on Wednesday signed a letter of agreement, which solidifies the terms of a foreign military sale between two nations.

The departments of State and Defense did not immediately respond to requests for comment........

It’s unclear whether the incoming administration will seek to undo the deal.

Biden’s pick for secretary of state, Antony Blinken, told reporters in late October that the sale is “something we would look at very, very carefully,” due to U.S. obligations to preserve Israel’s qualitative military edge.

"Biden’s pick for secretary of state, Antony Blinken, told reporters in late October that the sale is “something we would look at very, very carefully,” due to U.S. obligations to preserve Israel’s qualitative military edge."

that was before the election......................

I have see £22 million per airframe. Given the low total buy I can't see how it would make sense for another Tornado F.2 - Typhoon Tranche 1 2 seaters style RTP programme. Running a mixed fleet of Typhoons with several squadrons of Tranche 1s in AD or ACT roles makes sense but not IMHO doing with F-35s.

F-35s will be Block 4 from lot 15 in 2023 this coincides with the DAS swap - I think the statement below implies the Block 4 upgrades to the UKs earlier airframes will now happen.Source: https://www.janes.com/defence-news/n...35-das-upgrade


Regarding SPEAR requiring block 4:
Jane's Missiles and Rockets 18 January 2016

"Key Points

• The integration of Storm Shadow on the F-35B as part of UK follow-on development has been dropped
• The UK is looking to integrate the Meteor BVR air-to-air missile and the SPEAR Cap 3 stand-off precision guided weapon as part of Block 4"

That was in January 2020 - the UK position changed in June 2020.....

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...e-of-its-f-35s

British Government Says It Might Pass On $27M Upgrade For Some Of Its F-35s

The U.K. government has disclosed for what appears to be the first time that it is not necessarily committed to eventually upgrading all 48 of the F-35B Joint Strike Fighters that it plans to buy with the still-in-development and increasingly costly Block 4 package. Jets without the updates would be left with more limited capabilities. This also raises questions about how existing and future F-35 operators might approach the same question.

Jeremy Quin, the U.K. Minister for Defense Procurement and member of the country's Conservative Party, offered this note about upgrading the F-35Bs in response to a question from Kevan Jones, a member of parliament from the opposition Labor Party, on June 23, 2020. Jane's Gareth Jennings noted the exchange in Hansard, the official record of the proceedings of both the House of Commons and the House of Lords, on Twitter.

Jones asked "whether the F-35 Block 4 upgrade is already (a) costed and (b) budgeted for in the existing F-35 programme budget for the U.K.; how many aircraft will be upgraded; and what the forecast programme cost range is."

"The F-35 Block 4 upgrade has been included in the U.K. F-35 programme budget since its inception," Quin responded. However, "decisions on the number of aircraft to be upgraded will be made on the basis of military capability requirements."
The clear implication here is that while Block 4 has been a factor in the U.K. government's budgeting around the F-35, that doesn't mean that it plans to upgrade all 48 of the jets it expects to receive. Quin also declined to offer a figure for the total project cost of the upgrades.....

If the U.K. government does expect the unit cost of the upgrade package to be around $27.4 million, that would amount to increasing the purchase price of the jets by roughly a quarter or more. There have already been questions about whether there might be cuts to the planned British F-35 fleet in the face of other budget uncertainty in recent years.

Joint Strike Fighter operators could certainly use aircraft without the upgrades for training or test and evaluation roles, just as the branches of the U.S. military have done with their older aircraft. However, for smaller operators, relegating some of the handful of jets they have to primarily non-combat missions would reduce the overall combat capacity of their F-35 fleets and would result in mismatched fleet management.

All told, the U.K. government's ambiguous statement about whether or not it will upgrade all of its F-35Bs with the Block 4 package only further underscores the difficulties and growing costs that Joint Strike Fighter operators will continue to have to mitigate and defray as time goes on in order to get the most out of their F-35 fleets.....

ORAC - major brain fade on my part - I thought "Previously, the UK government had said that no decision would be made until it understood the time and cost implications of the upgrade." meant the statement you highlight and didn't register the year.

However, given the timescale of the UK purchase not upgrading the majority makes little sense IMHO. The cost of the upgrade would surely be partly offset by savings in the cost of maintaining incompatible sub-systems?

I could make the case in many circumstances where money spent up front will save money in the long term.

Unfortunately the record of the armed forces is to make cuts in the present, whether by cancelling spares or slipping purchases - and hoping something will come to pass in the future to fill the hole....

Been reinforced over the last 11 years.

$27 million per airframe for an upgrade? That's half of what the F35 was supposed to cost out the door!!!

They might want to read the MOU they signed, in regard to updates and cost of development.

https://aviationweek.com/defense-spa...uisition-shake

U.S. Air Force Talks New F-16 Orders In Latest Acquisition Shake-Up

U.S. Air Force officials are talking about ordering new Lockheed Martin F-16s two decades after signing the last production contract.

A review of the tactical aircraft portfolio now underway is set to deliver another Air Force acquisition shake-up in the fiscal 2023 budget request, with F-16s, Boeing F-15EXs, a new breed of so-called attritable aircraft and a next-generation fighter competing for a pool of production funding once monopolized by Lockheed’s F-35A.....

The F-16 remains in production in Greenville, South Carolina, where Lockheed transplanted the assembly line in 2019 to support continued international demand for the 50-year-old design.....

The reasons for the shift in resources has evolved in public statements over time. When Air Force officials requested funding in 2019 to order the first eight of up to 144 new F-15EXs, they justified the unexpected move as a response to an urgent need. Recent inspections had determined that an aging fleet of F-15Cs require new wings to remain airworthy, and the existing training pipeline and infrastructure made F-15EXs a more expedient option than the F-35A.

But the tactical aircraft fleet review could establish a permanent combat role for nonstealthy fighters for decades to come. The F-15EX not only represents a convenient option for an urgent F-15C replacement, but its centerline weapon station with a 7,500-lb. load capacity also may fill a gap in the Air Force’s force structure for a tactical aircraft that can carry a rocket-boosted hypersonic glide vehicle.....

The review opens the possibility that the Air Force could order four different fighters—the F-35A, F-15EX, F-16 Block 70/72 and a next-generation fighter—while continuing to operate the Lockheed F-22 and the A-10. The Air Force also would be splitting orders between two Lockheed designs.

“We are proud to partner with the U.S. Air Force across our portfolio, including the F-16 and other fighter platforms,” says Danya Trent, Lockheed vice president for the F-16 program.

As new roles are being considered for nonstealthy jets, a long-standing frustration with the costs of operating the military’s stealth fighter fleet is being exposed at the highest levels of the Pentagon. Asked by a reporter on Jan. 14 for his thoughts about the F-35, then-Acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller referred to his department’s largest weapon system program as a “piece of ****.”....

The cynic in me is wondering if this has just as much to do with "spreading the wealth" to different parts of the country to maintain congressional support for the USAF budget as it does with any shortcomings of the F-35...

I thought that was why F-35 sub-contracts had been spread liberally across the country, especially in areas with influential congress members.

I recal the saying: “Success has many fathers, but failure is an orphan”...

Pilot reports on what’s good and bad about the f35 cockpit,

https://hushkit.net/

I see from the latest copy of Flight that they availability is still well under 65%

Ride of the Valkyries
 

It’s official what the 495th be called

https://www.lakenheath.af.mil/News/A...aLyxCii-6Oji8/

and stirring up memories of


cheers

https://www.snafu-solomon.com/2021/0...-via-navy.html

Delivering an F-35C power module via a Navy CMV-22B Osprey


https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....079f6b500.jpeg



https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....4abd35c16.jpeg

It (just) fits!

The first picture is the first time I've really appreciated the size of the extra fuel sponsors on the CMV-22.

Lest you think the change of administration has altered the move away from the F-35 in Washington...

https://www.defensenews.com/congress...ut-our-losses/

Ripping F-35 costs, House Armed Services chairman looks to ‘cut our losses’

WASHINGTON ― The House Armed Services Committee chairman railed at the expensive F-35 Joint Strike Fighter on Friday, saying he wants to “stop throwing money down that particular rathole,” ― just days after the Air Force said it too is looking at other options.

“What does the F-35 give us? And is there a way to cut our losses? Is there a way to not keep spending that much money for such a low capability because, as you know, the sustainment costs are brutal,” Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., said a Brookings event.

Air Force officials recently said they are conducting a study to find the best mix of fighters including Lockheed Martin’s F-35, Boeing’s F-15EX and a replacement for the service’s oldest F-16s. Smith was thinking along similar lines.

“What I’m going to try to do is figure out how we can get a mix of fighter-attack aircraft that’s the most cost effective. And I am telling you right now a big part of that is finding something that doesn’t make us have to rely on the F-35 for the next 35 years,” he said.......

While the F-35 was designed to replace the F-16 — among several other aircraft variants — Air Force officials said this month they were exploring less expensive options, including buying new F-16s from Lockheed, evaluating low-cost tactical drones and pursuing a clean-sheet fighter, as described by Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. CQ Brown in February.

In broader remarks emphasizing more modest, cost-effective goals for the military, Smith said Congress must “seriously scrub” the Pentagon’s big-ticket weapons programs. Though Smith holds a powerful job, the F-35 enjoys strong support in Congress, and the lawmaker lamented that the country seems to be locked into the program.

“We have wasted a spectacular amount of money on weapons systems that either haven’t worked at all or who have not lived up to their promise,” Smith said. “The failure we wind up tolerating is failure on a massive freaking scale. Think F-35.”......

Not directly about the F-35, more directed at Australian defence posture and the fact the threat has changed.

https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-in...matic-purchase

Australia’s F-35s: Lessons from a problematic purchase

In a startling statement reported this month, two recent Air Force chiefs assert Australia has made some grave force structure errors. It seems the RAAF needs a new bomber, as the new F-35 Joint Strike Fighter now entering service is inadequate for future strike operations. The chiefs’ intervention raises questions about how this could have happened and, given growing international tensions, how such expensive strategic missteps can be avoided......

Salute!

Do not forget that the U.S. Chair of the Armed Services Cmte represents a company that competes with LM, and the F-35 is replacing one plane that company makes. Surely there can be no hint of bias, much less actual tactical employment experience or ignorance huh?

He's talking about "cost effective". What you need to be looking for is "combat effective". I have to remind him that in actual combat, there ain't no points for second place. USAF and USN and a host of nations are keeping plenty of 4th generation systems around for a long time. It's the near peer or better threats that the F-35 is intended to handle. Results at Red Flag seem to show it will do just fine in combat.

...Gums sends...

It’s not a force structure error so much as strategic environment has changed.

even if the RAAF bought a couple of squadrons of B21, they would still need 100(+) fighters.

the classic hornet is getting long in the tooth, and frankly is not competitive against peer/near-peer threats.

what fighter would you have had the buy to replace the classic instead?

Classic hornet is gone from RAAF service. RAAF will be super hornets / growlers and F-35's

buying anything more now would probably be a bad move, only way is if there is something modern that has a way cheaper per hour than both the F-35 and super hornet, maybe buying / leasing some of them.

1. Classic isn’t done. It’s still flying with 75 Sqn at RAAF Tindal (but it will be done soon...)

2. That was the one point. There was (is) no other suitable fighter to replace classic hornet (assuming 5th Gen capes are a driving factor).

3. The other point I was trying to make is that there has been no real strat bomber (or F-111) requirement for the previous 20-30 years. It could (potentially) be argued there is an emerging requirement for this sort of capability. But this isn’t a force structure issue (of the argument to replace fighters with bombers) - the fact remains that the F-35 purchase was appropriate at the time, and remains so. If anything the RAAF will need more fighters before they want to buy $500m a pop bombers...

On Flight Global:-
F-35B completes sea trials on Italian aircraft carrier ITS Cavour

Click the link for remainder of article.

The new paint on the “back in the air F117 “ might be useful on the F35 for defeating older radar systems , but how well will it work on the satellite laser detection systems ? If at all ?
We had a fella paint the front of his car with RAM to avoid radar speed traps during his commute, he got caught with the Laser speed trap Mk 1 . Then his troubles started because he had installed radar jammers in the front as well . He was given the opportunity to remove it .

A trifecta of issues....

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2021...tled-lockheed/

‘Don’t expect more money’ for additional F-35s in FY22, lawmakers tell an embattled Lockheed

WASHINGTON — Two influential Democrat lawmakers warned on Thursday that they will not support boosting the number of Lockheed Martin-made F-35 joint strike fighters in the upcoming fiscal 2022 budget unless the program makes headway in addressing a laundry list of problems.

“If this program continues to fail to significantly control and reduce actual and projected sustainment costs, we may need to invest in other, more affordable programs and backfill an operational shortfall of potentially over 800 tactical fighters,” said Rep. Donald Norcross, D-N.J., who chairs the House Armed Services Committee’s tactical air and land subcommittee.

“Given the overall affordability concerns that exist within the program, I would not support any requests for additional aircraft beyond what is contained in this year’s president’s budget request,” he said during a hearing on the F-35.

Rep. John Garamendi, D-Calif., who leads HASC’s readiness subcommittee, doubled down on Norcross’s vow to fight adding extra F-35s to the FY22 budget.

“The program is over budget. It fails to deliver on promised capabilities. And its mission capability rates do not even begin to meet the service thresholds,” Garamendi said. “Industry’s solution to many of these problems is simply to ask the taxpayers to throw money at the problem. That will not happen. The easy days of the past are over.”........

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2021...istics-system/

F-35 program office announces a ‘strategic pause’ on new logistics system

WASHINGTON — The Defense Department is pausing its efforts to field replacement software for the F-35′s troubled logistics system due to a lack of funding, the head of the F-35 program office said Thursday......

Fick’s testimony did not address when the program office intends to restart ODIN software development efforts, saying only that the JPO will update its plan based on available funding, inputs from the services and its finalized strategy for migrating from ALIS to ODIN......

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2021...-engine-price/

Turkey’s removal from F-35 program to cause hike in engine price

WASHINGTON — The cost of the F-35′s engine is set to increase by 3 percent due to Turkey’s removal from the program in 2019, the head of Pratt & Whitney’s military engines division said Thursday.......

Aside from the forthcoming engine cost increase, the F-35 program is also grappling with difficulties in sustaining the F135 due to a power module shortage.

On April 22, a total of 21 Air Force F-35As were grounded due to engine problems, said Brig. Gen. David Abba, who leads the F-35 integration office. Fifteen of those aircraft would be flyable with engine repairs.......

The F-35 program is beginning to see increased output of F135 power modules due to the arrival of needed support equipment and technical data, Fick said.......

However, because the services will begin conducting 2,000 hour overhaul inductions in 2022, the program office estimates the costs to maintain the F135 will grow over the next five years, Fick stated........

Salute!

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....2408ad115e.jpg


Gums sends...

The F-15 and F-16 were a dog's breakfast. So was the legacy FA-18a/b. We could post pallets of papers supporting this position. The F-35 is the current dog's breakfast. Any bets on the US procurement system doing anything different with the next platform?

As has been said, RAAF needs 3+ squadrons of fighters. The F-35 is replacing the legacy Hornet. The F-111 was an obsolete, orphan platform and retired. The RAAF at the time, didn't even want the Super Hornet. Which were purchased as a stop gap. It is deemed the CONOPS doesn't warrant a long range, heavy bomber. That hasn't changed, regardless of what some 'think tank' writes on a wish list.

Anyone old enough to remember the panel access tool which listed at 900 dollars ? Turned out it was just a screwdriver and a clever accounting shuffle to hide the costs involved with some secret projects . I was beginning to suspect the same game was being played with this particular project and any day we are going to see a brand new NGAD that will please everyone except those who have to fight it . But sadly I am beginning to lose faith in the conspiracy theories that would support such an idea and maybe they do not have a secret replacement and this is it .
No manned Super X47 type project , no skunk works black art sub orbit fighter with Particle beam weapons and lasers for the new space force , not even hints of a secret production run of newer F22s , just this .
No wonder the enemy is emboldened, or are they being lured into an ambush ?

Gums,
Hopefully the Pentagon brass and politicians have learned from the F-35 program what not to do in the future. Too bad they didn't learn from the previous fiasco in attempting to build one aircraft for multiple services and multiple missions in the Kennedy era, it wasn't that long ago. Wait until the bills roll in on keeping F-35s in the air and flying, mission ready as they say...

Salute!

Good comment, Turbine.

Unlike the F-111. this beast seems to be more capable of meeting the needs of the three services, and the Marines are doing well with their Bees.

The A model seems to be doing well, and I am not clear as to where the logistics line has broken down. I also sense a "Hornet uber alles"" mentality in the U.S. Navy. I flew the Sluf and Viper in their early years and logisitcs problems were apparent. They were solved and both planes went on to do well in combat and otherwise.

I am more worried about the "polyticks" that do not know squat about the procurement and fielding process. I also have a bad feeling about a few military folks that seem to focus on the negative waves. I do not know what they want to meet any threats in the next ten years, but we have to play the cards we are dealt tonight, The F-35 is not anywhere close to the F-111 fiasco. Thus far, the Red Flag results indicate a capable plane for both SEAD and basic air to mud stuff. And then there is the amazing integration of the battlefield situation that is passed to other friendllies. That rascal is worth a few AWACS.

Gums sends...

Gums, you have the cred to say what you did, and I sincerely hope you’re right. If you are we are in good shape.

Hi Gums, just some thoughts on a couple of points you raise

While your comment re 2nd place is agreed 100%, in my experience, "cost effective" includes "combat effectiveness" - or should do!!!! Since the early 2000's here in the UK, it's been very much a case of how cheaply can we deliver a given "punch to the enemy". For example, the UK went down the Integrated Operational Support (IOS) route starting in the 2000's starting with SKIOS and then on into IMOS, Apache IOS, ATTAC and TyTAN (covering Sea King, Merlin, Apache, Tornado and Typhoon) - all with the stated aim of maintaining OC but with significantly reduced support costs. The "bait" was that the savings accruing would, according to "The Master Plan", then be ploughed back into new OC. I don't know how successful that concept has been - the "Master Plan" bit!

Again, good points. However, one could argue that we, certainly in the UK, no longer have the "fat" to cover these ramp-ups and the formal Assumption today seems to be that a platform will reach maturity far more quickly with far fewer issues. By way of example, say in the early 1980's, the UK had 7 fast jet front line Fleets with, approx, 37 Sqdns (there being a lot of change-overs in the late 70's/early 80's it's tricky to count but 37 is what I came up with inc RAF and FAA). Today we have 2 such fleets in 8 Sqdns. Why I believe this is important is that, when a new Fleet is introduced, a greater %age of capability is "turned over" so, when there are teething problems, it has a greater impact on the overall Force OC - more-so where the A/C provides capabilities which were traditionally looked after by, say, ELINT and AWACS fleets - I've not factored that in to my Sqdn/Fleet count!

Re the logistic chain issues, I believe much is to do with problems with ALIS as well as the more traditional Supply Chain glitches. "ALIS integrates a broad range of capabilities including operations, maintenance, prognostics, supply chain, customer support services, training and technical data." (my underline) according to LM. If that is not doing what it should do, that will drive maintenance delays/costs up, particularly if your Assumptions (yep, them again!) are based on that system working perfectly from Day 1 (yep, I know, I know.....!!). Sometimes, the Mil believe the Manufacturers "promises" too literally........... I'm not connected with the F35 today (just a bit of JSF work back in the late '90's) - my last Mil involvement was with Typhoon a couple of years back - so I only have the Press/gossip to work with!

Anyway, just some thoughts to ponder. I guess we all just hope that, for the boys and girls using the kit on the Front Line, it all comes good. After all, a sack full of "Capability" is no good sat on the ground waiting for a small "Widget"! :uhoh:

Salute!

All here from the U.K, and other places must unnerstan the polyticks from one persuasion or the other that wish to use the proles' tax money for their special projects.

The F-35 got a lotta attention due to 1) cost and then 2) some initial problems with parts and engines and mainly logistics problems, not aircraft performance. I do not know what economic school our polyticks went thru, but to develop and field three airplanes on one ticket versus three slightly different planes on three programs is an amazing amount of $$$$. I agree that a dedicated Harrier replacement would have been cheaper than the entire F-35 program, but would only satisfy the need of the USMC. The F-35A and the Navy Cee could have been a straighforward replacement for the Hornet and Viper. Nevertheless, the JSF program did not wind up as the 'vaark program did. The 'vaark was a very good penetration attack plane, and then a super ECM asset. We even had a few of the "G" model to fill in the gap until the Bone came online. If you compare the development costs and the plane's capabilities, the $$ are way less than three separate programs.

The USAF A-7D had many subsytem logistic problems besides the engine problems of the Rolls Spey licensed to Allison. Until we flew to Thailand for actual combat, we would fly without our main radar, projected map, and so forth. Once in Thailand we had access to the "war reserve supply" stuff and walla! We also could get many parts from the USN flying the "E" model from carriers and Subic Bay. Same for the first few year sof the Viper, and for our first full blown inspection we had access to the war time components and one squadron of 24 UE flew over 100 sorties in a 24 hour period, finishing with 20+ FMC birds.

I can go to any operational squadron and show a low FMC percentage if we use things like a broken cover over a certain switch or loss of one mode of the radar or ....... So the folks that want Hornets for 20 more years or billions for a new social program will look for any stat to use. And then there's the bogus cost per flying hour - add in everything you can for development, testing, wages for all the wrenchbenders and aircrew and actual cost of JP-4, then divide by hours flown and whoa! Allowing for inflation, looks to me that the new plane is cheaper per hour than my old, trusty Viper or even my friends' Phantoms.

Oh well, we shall see, but right now I predict a serious slowdown on procurement of the F-35 unless the U.S. polyticks changes in another two years.

Gums sends...

Oh, agreed there gums!!!! Seen many "pet projects" supported by VSOs which have ultimately failed - but not before said VSOs have become Sir VVSOs! And the same, no doubt in Polyticks - love that connotation by the way!!! :ok:

I just don't have access to actual supportability cost figures which, of course, need to be factored as, while one can compare support costs for A/C "A" vs A/C "B", if "B" happens to be far more capable than "A" and can do much of what "C" can do ...... well, it's hard to read across in a meaningful way. Just our decreased force size means that any problems (for whatever reason) during rollouts has much greater impact overall. That's my only point really.

WRT mission criticality, and what constitutes a "S" asset, I'm no longer party to those games and, here in the UK, the F35 is "early days". But if ALIS is as broke as suggested, that won't help the hangar rats (my last but one Contract was back in that world so I can "squeak" with the best!) get the jets out the door by 0630. And the MF704 was "well used" to cover the "broken cover over a certain switch" scenario in other Fleets. And, in times of war, things do happen. But, in peace time, as you say, figures can be manipulated playing games - just I'm not so convinced to date of that happening here in the UK.

Indeed, also here in the UK, it seems difficult to get a commitment as to how many more F35 the UK will buy from anyone I/C ..... so only time will tell. Here I suspect it is more down to real ££££s per frame + support costs ...... as well as changing priorities such as Tempest. So we have our own brand of Polyticks at play!!!!! :ok:

But, as you say, "We shall see..........". Let's just hope for the folks on the Front Line, they can get on with with the job in hand safely. And, hopefully, what decisions are made at the top of the tree are for the right reasons - not just to score points or whatever. Fingers crossed, eh!!!!

Cheers, H 'n' H

News from the MoD

F-35B jets to join the fight against Daesh from the Carrier Strike Group

UK F-35B fighter jets operating from HMS Queen Elizabeth will join Operation Shader in the fight against Daesh.


From:Ministry of Defence and James Heappey MPPublished:3 May 2021

https://assets.publishing.service.go...AA0032-002.jpg
An RAF F-35B fighter jet lands on board HMS Queen Elizabeth

F-35B Lightning fast jets will be the cutting edge of the Carrier Strike Group’s (CSG21) formidable power in the air.

These are next generation multi-role combat aircraft equipped with advanced sensors, mission systems and stealth technology, enabling them to carry out intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance tasks.

This will be the first time UK fighter aircraft are embarked on an operational aircraft carrier deployment since 2010, and will be the largest number of F-35Bs ever to sail the seas.

The renowned 617 Squadron RAF (‘The Dambusters’) will operate the jets to provide tangible and impactful support to counter-Daesh operations in Iraq and Syria.

If you want to read more, it's at https://www.gov.uk/government/news/f...nt=immediately

airsound