With the TL ( 6 ) on the sides as US SSNs since long time at less since Los Angeles very possible Sturgeon also.
?
Fleet Air Arm Fighter Pilots. This is what they have been getting up to the last few years without Harriers or our own carriers to fly from:
Future RAF, for 2019 81 Tornados retired in 3 Sqns ( front line ) replaced by yet 48 F-35B( up to 138 ) in 2/3 sqns after more F-35 and 160 Typhoon now 135 in 5 Sqns later 7 Sqns whose 2 with tranche 1 for duty in UK.
So now 216 fighter-bombers in 8 FL Sqns ; in 2019 with max 20 F-35 180 and after around 220 normaly Typhhon Tr 1 repl later by others F-35 presumably A, 48 is enough for CVs and A is less expensive.
Seems the max possible ~ 100 Typhoon ( 160 - 53 Tr 1 - losses ) with about 130 F-35 : 230.
One Sqn in theory have 13 Typhoons or 16 Tornados in practice 11 - 15 and 7 - 12
OCU more big ofc 18 and 19
OEU with 2 types have 8
So number in line is low 120 for 226 fighters-bombers but can allow a good availability
So now 216 fighter-bombers in 8 FL Sqns ; in 2019 with max 20 F-35 180 and after around 220 normaly Typhhon Tr 1 repl later by others F-35 presumably A, 48 is enough for CVs and A is less expensive.
Seems the max possible ~ 100 Typhoon ( 160 - 53 Tr 1 - losses ) with about 130 F-35 : 230.
One Sqn in theory have 13 Typhoons or 16 Tornados in practice 11 - 15 and 7 - 12
OCU more big ofc 18 and 19
OEU with 2 types have 8
So number in line is low 120 for 226 fighters-bombers but can allow a good availability
Last edited:
Just for clarification, in the last SDSR the RAF's FJ force was announced to be reorganised from previous force levels: the Typhoon force would increase from 5 frontline sqns to 7over the next few years by two measures; the tranche 1 aircraft would be retained rather than prematurely retired and the actual number of aircraft issued to frontline sqns would be reduced and redistributed, meaning two further sqns could stand up for very little overall cost, as the aircraft were already bought and paid for and availability due to maintenance issues was a lot better than originally forecast.
As to the F-35, confirmation that the ultimate buy would be the original figure of 138 was announced, and that at least four frontline sqns plus OCU would stand up by the mid 2020s; these four sqns would be two with RAF number plates (17R for the OCU, 617 and another yet to be named for the frontline units) and two FAA (800 series, 809 plus 8xx to be named later) sqns. Standard sqn size for the F-35 will be 12 aircraft each. Manning would be mixed across all five units between dark blue and light blue, but not necessarily 50:50 in every unit. sqns will be manned according to availability of personnel regardless of their parent service, so some sqns will have more light blue, some more dark blue. Overall manning for the lightning force would be 50:50 though. All future purchases of F-35s will be 'B' models if for no other reason than to avoid the situation of 'fleets within fleets', which leads to spiralling maintenance costs and not having the enough of the right type available for a given deployment. The 'B' can do anything the 'A' can from a land base so buying any 'A' models would be near impossible to justify for the UK MOD. The range difference is made meaningless in land based ops because IFR is easily provided, which is also the main reason why the 'C' is often suggested for RAF Land based ops too.
Interesting yes but F-35A is better than B and clearly,
Reason because of the weight and the space occupied by the propulsion system on the B, weapons load half the size and also weapons bay by less long can host weapons of max 3.85 m vs 4.2 m for A/C ( same diameter for all 0.64 m for the main HP ) and B can' t host a 2000 lbs bombs or by ex AGM-154 do 4.1 m the A/C can, even a NSM to 3.95 m don' t fit in the B.
In more 2 external HP able for only 1500 lb vs 2500 for the A so a total of 2 t in less in comparison with A.
For AAM load It does not matter same for all right now max 10 AAMs later with Block 4 normaly 6 in weapons bay (+2) and with adapter for 2 as F-18/22 on ext main HP ( + 4 ) up to 16 AAMs as F-22.
Meteor more big max 4 internaly.
CR a difference A 1100 km vs B 850 hi-lo-hi with internal fuel and max weapons load for stealth missions.
Last edited:
Whatever the merits of the 'A', we won't be buying any. With a homogenous fleet of 'B's the savings will outweigh any benefits from a split buy. Even the current Typhoon fleet is a reminder of that fact, with Tranche 1, Tranche 2, Tranche 3A and 3B fleets which are from a maintenance point of view incompatible aircraft requiring their own distinct supply chains. Any mission profile we in the UK could conceivably use an 'A' or 'C' for (from a land base), we can just as easily use a 'B' for. Range differences between models are negated by the use of In Flight Refuelling. Differences in bomb bay capacity don't affect planned UK operations as we don't have the larger weapons in our inventory to begin with. Simply put, our F-35Bs can do anything the RAF/FAA needs them to do from land, but the F-35A is useless for the Carrier Strike mission, which is the primary justification for the purchase. Our two Carriers can operate up to 36 each, 72 at sea in short term surge of both decks, so a buy of only 48 Bs would be utterly inadequate.
I was going to cheekily point out that the A uses the 'Flying Boom' method of refuelling for which we have no compatible tankers, but even I know the probe system of the B and C can be fitted easily to the A if the customer requires. All three types use the same Nose section/ cockpit after all. LM has said if you want As with probes you just have to ask...
I was going to cheekily point out that the A uses the 'Flying Boom' method of refuelling for which we have no compatible tankers, but even I know the probe system of the B and C can be fitted easily to the A if the customer requires. All three types use the same Nose section/ cockpit after all. LM has said if you want As with probes you just have to ask...
IMHO, they should consider building a version of the "C" that does not have the folding wings, does not have the arresting hook, and does not have the heavier landing gear and make it an version for certain Air Forces.
it would cost less...but it would get the bigger wing and the additional fuel, lift, and the additional weapons carrying and range capability.
I bet the RAF and others could get interested in such a version...if it also refueled the way the RAF refuels.
Call i the F-35D.
@Air Force Brat @test bd @SouthernSky @FORBIN @navyreco @Jura