FighterControl

Thought I might as well make one consistent thread rather than have lots of rumours/other threads flying about elsewhere.

When the review is eventually released we can put all discussion in here.

Until then, the will they won't they rumour which has been flying around for what must have been the last 10 years alone has resurfaced and this time looks more credible than ever...

https://archive.ph/mb72c

The UK has received 37 F-35B fighter jets, designed for short take-offs from the Royal Navy’s two aircraft carriers, from an initial order of 48 planes.

However, ministers are considering buying more F-35As, which operate from normal runways, following the recent increase in defence spending.

In terms of fast jet numbers, I personally feel this might at last be a good call. The production line for Typhoon may be saved by a Saudi and Turkish buy and the RAF/FAA aren't overly happy with F-35B range/performance/weapons integration. F-35A would mitigate this somewhat until Tempest can be brought online.

In terms of the overall RAF, money should be spent elsewhere I feel. Wedgetail numbers need upping and Hawk T2 replacement needs addressing.

Then again, The Times may well have become confused here. A follow up Tranche 2 buy of 27 F-35B is almost a certainty to be announced.

By the time any a/c are manufactured and delivered Trump will be long gone.

Thunder wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 30, 2025 10:09 pm

By the time any a/c are manufactured and delivered Trump will be long gone.

But Trump mk2 JD Vance could be around for 2 terms after him.

Thunder wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 30, 2025 10:09 pm

By the time any a/c are manufactured and delivered Trump will be long gone.

Trump is determined to try and get a third term. That includes running as Vance's Vice President in 2028 and then having Vance step down as President. He also claims to have other options.

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/trump-says-no ... 59890.html

I would prefer a option to buy a aircraft that can carry multiple long range munitions. Either more p-8's or develop a long range strategic drine capable of carrying say half a dozen munitions.

the concerned wrote: ↑

Mon Mar 31, 2025 4:27 pm

I would prefer a option to buy a aircraft that can carry multiple long range munitions. Either more p-8's or develop a long range strategic drine capable of carrying say half a dozen munitions.

Based on what exactly? You say you’d prefer, are you setting defence strategy? Or just giving a wish list?

My opinion is based on the what I think the UK and the European contigent of NATO is missing. Long range stand off missiles will always be the preferred option in most missions. All fighter aircraft can only carry 1or 2 stand off munitions but something larger would be able to employ many more. This is something the US can offer but no one else.

Tomahawk missiles are a pretty good stand off weapon.

the concerned wrote: ↑

Mon Mar 31, 2025 7:20 pm

My opinion is based on the what I think the UK and the European contigent of NATO is missing. Long range stand off missiles will always be the preferred option in most missions. All fighter aircraft can only carry 1or 2 stand off munitions but something larger would be able to employ many more. This is something the US can offer but no one else.

Thunder beat me to it, but yes, submarine or surface vessel, or even land launched, Tomahawk could give a fair amount of that capability. That said an ALCM equipped B52 or B1 does offer an amount of flexibility.

Subs and surface warfare ships do offer that but was thinking like the current situation in Ukraine they wouldn't be much use because of access to the black sea.so a aerial platform and maybe even land based option would help.

Vulcans with Skybolts maybe.......

The P-8 was in trials/testing in 2024 at Pax River to carry 4 long range missiles on underwing pylons for the US Navy, maybe the RAF could do similar.

https://www.navalnews.com/event-news/se ... -poseidon/

the concerned wrote: ↑

Tue Apr 01, 2025 6:20 am

Subs and surface warfare ships do offer that but was thinking like the current situation in Ukraine they wouldn't be much use because of access to the black sea.so a aerial platform and maybe even land based option would help.

Launched from the Eastern Med or the Baltic, the Ukraine/Russian boarder is within easy reach. Unless the funds are there(which they aren’t), and the willingness of the USA to sell(which they won’t), the only option currently is B-21.

I would hope the review encourages no further slippage of the Spear 3 and Spear 5 missles, the first of which gives the F35B some teeth and the latter, assuming it will be VLS compatible will be able to be carried by the type 31 and 26 frigates, which, alongside the sub carried cruise missles should give the Navy a decent stand off capability across multiple platforms. If we want to give the P8 some stand off capability how about the JSM? We already bought the ship version, but not sure if anyone has yet matched the P8 with anything other than LRASM?

That's why my personal opinion is a increase in P8's would be a better buy than either fighter options.

Given the choice the RAF would go for more Wedgetails over P-8, just three E-7s isn’t viable.

Fighterfoto wrote: ↑

Wed Apr 02, 2025 7:52 am

Given the choice the RAF would go for more Wedgetails over P-8, just three E-7s isn’t viable.

And hopefully now that the USAF and NATO are getting some.... We will hopefully get some more.. We shall soon see as I believe the SDR will be published this month....

the concerned wrote: ↑

Wed Apr 02, 2025 6:11 am

That's why my personal opinion is a increase in P8's would be a better buy than either fighter options.

I'd argue that Storm Shadow and LRASM have maybe a range of 150 - 200 miles, so whether they are launched by Typhoon or P8, that is irrelevant. How many could a P8 carry, 2, maybe 4, compared to a Typhoons 2 Storm Shadow, so that is a lot of investment in a specific role that would be limited compared to a Typhoon. Probably greater range is the main thing a P8 can bring in that role, and then you'd need to think where would we be fighting where that increased un-refueled range is vital?

So I think additional Typhoons and/or F35's give a better attack capability and flexibility. Could the RAF do with additional ASW capability and more P8's? probably yes, as well as additional strike capability.

Repost from another thread, but what I'd like to see the RAF get in the SDR and what I think is achievable:

- Tranche 4 Typhoon order. 25 aircraft to replace Tranche 1 going out of service. (This now seems more unlikely if Saudi/Turkey keep the line going).
- NMH heli to replace Puma.
- 5 Wedgetails instead of 3.
- Booms fitted to Voyagers.
- Tranche 2 F-35B order but cap it to the 74 total planned. Not 138 over the lifetime of the programme.
- 8 more A400M to offset the loss of Hercules and slowdown the heavy usage of the C-17 fleet, as originally envisioned.

There are rumours that the additional A400M buy has now been canned.

The army has been told(Via one of many news feeds on social media) that they will not get any more heavy equipment over and above what has already been signed off for (Boxer, Ajax, Challenger3 and the Land Rover Replacement) LR replacement many years over due


So my guess is the RAF will also be told they are having nothing new (More Typhoons over F35 a far better option )
Hope am wrong but just quelling expectations