AFM - UK Defence Select Committee Report Article

[binbrook87]

Sober reading in this month's Air Forces Monthly about the state of some of the UK Defence programmes. The Hawk T2 & pilot training saga, possible scrapping of Tranche 1 Typhoons, premature retirement of the C-130 and E-3, the ongoing F-35 shortages and the possibility of F-35As to supplement numbers, Wedgtail order number questions, UAV delays, and the farcical Gazelle replacement with EC135s... or not! I knew it was bad but I don't think I've ever read a more depressing article on the state of UK assets... especially when they are under the most intense pressure for a generation!

[RubyRoo]

What was their angle in terms of F-35As to supplement numbers?

That rumour has been doing the rounds for years but makes no sense to me and I can't believe it holds any truth.

[warthog81]

We must be one of very few major western US partners that does not currently intend to purchase/operate F-35A. I wish we would go for some really. Amazing how Italy for example has F-35A, F-35B along with Eurofighter. I think I am correct in saying they still have Tornado, AV-8 and AMX in service though guess their days are numbered as F-35 number increase.

Some air forces plan to rely totally on F-35A, maybe we could have done the same, then we have to think about tankers though. There never seems to be much logic in what we as a country decide to order or what we want to do in the world or what our role should be.

[SHELLEY01]

Warthog81. Your last sentence is very true. Totally agree. We'll get caught out one day.

[Agent K]

I guess @warthog81 that if we settled on the F-35A then we'd need the C's or an alternative for the carrier strike fleet.

Whilst of course they are answerable to politicians and the financial people, I do think the chiefs of staff over the years seem to have resided over and allowed this massive change, and death by 1000 cuts, reduction with little (visible) kick back, inertia or publicising the issues within mainstream media or such for more open debate. We have seen the fighter and strike force, in my lifetime, dwindle from 500+ Tornado GR, Harrier, Jaguar, Tornado ADV, Buccaneer to a 1 size fits all, and numbering I'd suggest 150 'ish, Typhoon and F-35 force, a shadow of the former RAF and stretched to maintain even the minimal of global commitments and exercises.

Also capabilities seem to have been allowed to lapse or have been lost, e.g. Sea Eagle, ALARM, low level all weather attack, Tactical airlift etc.

Not palatable for some but I for one would scrap the Red Arrows and BBMF and put those resources and finances to operational needs and requirements.

Sober reading indeed @binbrook87

[warthog81]

Some interesting points for sure. I don't see that we really need carriers anymore. We are a small country with a limited role in the world and a limited defence budget. Carriers are nice to have but nobody besides the USA seem to be able to do it really well. France has just one carrier, basically a part time carrier, we have two but really, really seem to be struggling having to get the USMC to deploy F-35Bs for example. If we had an unlimited budget then maybe we could have carriers but we do not. We seem to spend a huge amount of money, more than many other nations yet have such a tiny force to show for it. I come back to Italy with its Eurofighter, F-35A, F-35B, Tornado, AV-8 and AMX fleets, logically AMX, AV-8 and Tornado will all go fairly soon but that will still leave them with three main types of combat aircraft to our two! Yet here its like, bin the Jaguar, SHAR, Harrier GR9, Tornado F-3, Tornado GR4 and then end up with less Typhoons than planned and a tiny skeleton F-35B force.

If it was up to me then I would have a force of around 150x F-35A for the RAF, P-8s, E-7s, RC-135s, C-17s and C-130J along with tankers that can refuel all of that. Following the US model we could deploy those F-35s almost anywhere in the world fairly rapidly.

While carriers are nice it is hard to see we can justify the cost for a carrier force. World War Two saw the end of the battle ship and what with the increase in drone technology (as seen in Ukraine) both aerial and maritime drones will in my opinion likely make the aircraft carrier far more vulnerable. Maybe there is a role for small carriers to launch drones etc?

Do we accept our now more limited role in the world, spend our limited but still impressive budget more wisely and possibly end up with more to show for it or sink more and more money into vanity projects.

[Freeman Lowell]

But then the cost of procuring and operating two Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers is just a tiny sum when compared with the cost of procuring and operating the forthcoming Dreadnought class of ICBM submarines...
Just an observation.
Freeman

[warthog81]

I suppose we have to decide if we need nukes. I think yes but the cost is insanely high, however with the world as unstable as it is now I think we do. I would list nukes as a must have, carriers (very impressive that they are) are not.

[Enobob]

warthog81,

We are NOT a small country (we are the 5th wealthiest, 8th largest manufacturer, consistently 1st or 2nd in global soft power and have an impact and influence all around the world), we do NOT have a limited role in the world (influence and interests globally owing to our history and demographics) and we do NOT have a limited defence budget we have one of the largest in the world. What we do have is a Government that ideologically is opposed to any kind of [public expenditure and does not believe in state provided public services, and that includes defence and security. The issue with our carrier force is the glacial rate of procurement of the F-35b's and that is down entirely to our inefficient and ineffective defence procurement operation and senior officers that seem to be unable to decide prioroties and stick to them. a total buy of 138 F-35's (still the long term plan) would make for an extremely efficient and effective force.

[binbrook87]

If 138 is still the planned number of F-35b's (big questions over this still I imagine)....how long would it be before we reach full strength? Based on the current progress of 30 odd aircraft supplied in 5 years... this could take a further 15-20 years! Is that timescale realistic or indeed practical?...or is some form of 'fast track' in the pipeline? Further reading of the AFM articles also suggest a lack of ground support crew also contributing to delays in the programme so there's lots of issues. We may have to reduce the numbers anyway as the end date will just never be achievable and keep slipping and slipping. Surely we would be better opting for some additional quicker term solution to bolster front like strength now? F-35A's to me don't seem like a bad idea especially given the comminality with our NATO allies. Or what about Rafales? The Saudis are looking at them currently to possibly operate alongside Typhoons. But then you've got a 3 aircraft UK mixed fleet....not ideal given the current support issues.

[Malcolm]

If 138 is still the planned number of F-35b's (big questions over this still I imagine)....how long would it be before we reach full strength? Based on the current progress of 30 odd aircraft supplied in 5 years... this could take a further 15-20 years! Is that timescale realistic or indeed practical?...or is some form of 'fast track' in the pipeline? Further reading of the AFM articles also suggest a lack of ground support crew also contributing to delays in the programme so there's lots of issues. We may have to reduce the numbers anyway as the end date will just never be achievable and keep slipping and slipping. Surely we would be better opting for some additional quicker term solution to bolster front like strength now?

For a long time the plan hasn't been to have 138 in service at the same time. The plan is now to buy 138 over the lifetime of the 'project' which could easily be 30 years. The 'plan' is to have enough jets for peacetime deployments of 12 (ish), with a wartime complement of 24-32 ish plus sufficient jets for the OCU, OEU, deep servicing and attrition. That probably means a number in the 50-60 range.

F-35A's to me don't seem like a bad idea especially given the comminality with our NATO allies. Or what about Rafales? The Saudis are looking at them currently to possibly operate alongside Typhoons. But then you've got a 3 aircraft UK mixed fleet....not ideal given the current support issues.

F-35A's are unlikely until the 2035 timeframe due to the issues with the Airtanker contract. 2035 is also the current supposed timeframe for the Tempest.

Extra Typhoons would be more likely than Rafales if there is deemed to be a requirement for more jets in the short term. Most think the Saudis are 'looking' at Rafale because the German Govt is supposedly blocking the export of additional Typhoons due to the Yemen conflict.

[thevulcan]

Nothing wrong with the airtanker contract. Airtanker have said multiple times they are willing to change the contract to suit RAF needs such as fitting booms to some of the fleet or allowing a few A-400M's to be fitted with pods so they can be stationed down the Falklands freeing the Voyager up that is down there.

[Malcolm]

Nothing wrong with the airtanker contract. Airtanker have said multiple times they are willing to change the contract to suit RAF needs such as fitting booms to some of the fleet or allowing a few A-400M's to be fitted with pods so they can be stationed down the Falklands freeing the Voyager up that is down there.

And they are prepared to re-fit voyagers with booms to support F-35A without re-negotiating the terms/cost of the project? Not what I've been told. Sure they'll be willing - if the price is right.

[birdieb]

Nothing wrong with the airtanker contract. Airtanker have said multiple times they are willing to change the contract to suit RAF needs such as fitting booms to some of the fleet or allowing a few A-400M's to be fitted with pods so they can be stationed down the Falklands freeing the Voyager up that is down there.

And they are prepared to re-fit voyagers with booms to support F-35A without re-negotiating the terms/cost of the project? Not what I've been told. Sure they'll be willing - if the price is right.

They'd also be a cost if the RAF owned them too, not like it would be free.

[birdieb]

But then the cost of procuring and operating two Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers is just a tiny sum when compared with the cost of procuring and operating the forthcoming Dreadnought class of ICBM submarines...
Just an observation.
Freeman

ICBM submarines?!

[Nighthawke]

Inter-continental ballistic missile

[RubyRoo]

For a long time the plan hasn't been to have 138 in service at the same time. The plan is now to buy 138 over the lifetime of the 'project' which could easily be 30 years. The 'plan' is to have enough jets for peacetime deployments of 12 (ish), with a wartime complement of 24-32 ish plus sufficient jets for the OCU, OEU, deep servicing and attrition. That probably means a number in the 50-60 range.

74 has been mentioned.

48 in the initial batch (minus the 1 lost).

27 in a 'tranche 2' order.

F-35A and F-35C is most definitely not happening.

We've fully committed to the F-35B, even with the recent decision to make planned alterations to the carrier to include catapult/arrestor gear. Those changes will be sufficient for drone operation only.

If for any reason we were going to bulk up numbers in the fast jet fleet, it would almost certainly be a Tranche 4 Typhoon order or a commitment to more F-35Bs at some point.

There'll also be more commitment to Tempest as well.

[TonyO]

The UK's interest in F-35 has waned in part due to the high cost of operating it, but also the struggle it has had getting UK-developed weapons onto the aircraft such as Meteor and the Spear 3 small cruise missile, it is one of reasons why the UK is going down the Tempest/GCAP route with Italy and Japan.

[warthog81]

I wonder what the unit cost of Tempest will be and how many we will actually purchase.

[downes0106]

Have to agree with OP that the AFM articles make very sad reading for us in the UK, but the woes of the US with their F35 availability rates shows it's not just a UK issue. With USAF retiring their E3s before they have alternatives in place adds to this line of thought.