UK MOD in a muddle over F-35C

Program progress, politics, orders, and speculation
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

sunstersun

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 146
  • Joined: 12 Jul 2017, 06:50

Unread post27 Nov 2018, 04:06

spazsinbad wrote:What do you mean by 'royalties'? How is this decided? UK has 15% of F-35 production - is that what you mean? Why FMS?


I thought they got a royalty as a tier 1 partner for F-35's beyond the production aspect.

https://www.aerosociety.com/news/uk-f-3 ... ch-to-qec/

found it.

Additionally, because the UK invested early in the programme as a Tier 1 partner, it also receives royalties for every FMS F-35 sold (eg Israel and South Korea).
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 21720
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -1

Unread post27 Nov 2018, 04:12

This is the quote from recent artickle above: [news to me but what do I care - I ain't in UK or a Tier One partner nation]
"...All told, some 15% by value of the F-35 is made by UK companies. Additionally, because the UK invested early in the programme as a Tier 1 partner, it also receives royalties for every FMS F-35 sold (eg Israel and South Korea)…."

AND a lot of FOLDEROL from this 2003 link about Partners - levels & tiers before teatime:

viewtopic.php?f=58&t=69&p=300&hilit=royalties#p300
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4770
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post27 Nov 2018, 19:37

"There I was. . ."
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 21720
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -1

Unread post27 Nov 2018, 19:54

HMS Queen Elizabeth, F-35B trials, finale https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yO2-zMxlMXU

RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 21720
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -1

Unread post27 Nov 2018, 20:19

RAF F-35B Jets To Exercise With US And France
27 Nov 2018 ForcesNetwork

"Two of the RAF's F-35B Lightning stealth fighter jets will take part in an exercise over the North Sea later on Tuesday. They will fly alongside aircraft from the US and French Air Forces, in what is being described as part of an "insurance policy" against global threats. The supersonic aircraft, based at RAF Marham in Norfolk, will be among more than 40 planes participating in the training exercise off the east coast of England.

Aircraft, including the French Rafale fighter and US F-15, will work as a team to counter threats in a training environment. It is the first time the French Air Force has been involved in Point Blank, which is led by the US Air Force's 48th Fighter Wing, based at RAF Lakenheath in Suffolk...."

Source: https://www.forces.net/news/raf-f-35b-j ... nch-allies

Joint Force F-35Bs with US and French jets Exercise Point Blank https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kms1rp__vA4

RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 21720
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -1

Unread post30 Nov 2018, 01:00

Eight page PDF of article with excerpts below attached.
Lightning Lands at MARHAM
30 Nov 2018 SAC Tim Laurence RAF PR

"...Speaking in the station’s newly completed Lightning Force Headquarters, Force Commander Air Commodore David Bradshaw described the aircraft’s capabilities and how it is being introduced into service....

...“Other fundamental changes include the Integrated Training Centre [MARHAM], which houses pilot, engineer and mission support training under one roof. The pilot training element has four full-mission simulators and we’ll do a significant amount of training – initially 50% – in the synthetic environment. I expect the proportion of simulator training will increase in proportion to live flying, because the fidelity, the warfighting reality one can introduce into the synthetic environment is greater than in the peacetime live environment, since our number one concern when we’re training is safety.”...

...For the UK, Lightning offers a high-end ability to penetrate hostile airspace, potentially without being detected, to deliver weapons with precision and/or collect intelligence. It’s a level of essential capability that the RAF hasn’t needed to employ to its fullest extent in recent conflicts, so will the F-35 be equally effective in the type of lower intensity combat typical of recent operations? “Typhoon will provide the bulk of our combat air capability and F-35, if we had the option, might be chosen for those high-end missions. But we don’t always have the option – should it be required to deliver a ‘lower-end’ mission, close air support for example, we’ll use it that way. And where it becomes really interesting is during embarked operations. In a scenario where the carrier is beyond the broader coalition, or a crisis blows up at short notice and the ship is the only asset in the region, the F-35 will have to cover every combat mission. We won’t treat this aircraft as something incredibly precious to be held back for particular tasks. It will be part of the combat air force, but should we need to operate in a really high-threat environment, the F-35 gives us that capability.”

Source: ROYAL AIR FORCE ANNUAL REVIEW 2019
Attachments
F-35Bs MARHAM RAF The Official Annual Review 2019 pp8.pdf
(4.47 MiB) Downloaded 42 times
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 21720
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -1

Unread post30 Nov 2018, 21:47

'warbirds'? I CRINGE, see first sentence first paragraph from MoD RN News article about Ex. Point Blank (see video above).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warbird "A warbird is any vintage military aircraft operated by civilians/organizations..."
Lightnings strike Eagles and Hawks as F-35s train to defend UK skies
30 Nov 2018 RN PR

"Side by side several thousand feet above eastern England three warbirds fly in close formation as UK F-35s take part in their first combat exercise in home skies: playing out a mock 21st-Century Battle of Britain. Two Lightnings – one flown by an RAF pilot, the second with a Fleet Air Arm aviator in the cockpit – joined 40 British, American and French jets over East Anglia and the North Sea for Exercise Point Blank....

...“The first point of an air force is to be able to defend the country so you have to recognise the threats out there,” he added. “We can see the environment is changing, we can see the challenge that Russia is giving to the international rules-based order so we are the insurance policy. It really is a case of us staying ready so that we can be used if we’re needed.”

For the pilots of the F-35s the exercise gave them an opportunity to continue to develop tactics and procedures for operating side-by-side with less-advanced interceptors (Rafales, Hawks, F15s and even Typhoons are classed as fourth-generation fighters, the Lightning is fifth). As well as air-to-air combat, participants practised their ground-attack skills and also evading the RAF’s ground defences…."

Source: https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-l ... ngs-strike
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 21720
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -1

Unread post01 Dec 2018, 00:59

What did I say about UK CRABS [conventional RAF not Joint Force] undermining UK Naval Aviation? UhOh Dearie me....
RAF plan for F-35 split-buy undermines aircraft carrier programme
30 Nov 2018 SaveTheRoyalNavy

"Deborah Haynes, foreign affairs editor at Sky News [ https://news.sky.com/story/royal-navy-f ... s-11568074 ] has reported that, behind the scenes, the RAF is arguing hard to split the UK purchase of F-35 aircraft into two variants. The F-35B is the only fixed-wing aircraft able to operate from the new QEC aircraft carriers but it’s no secret that the RAF harbours the ambition to procure F-35As as a direct replacement for its land-based Tornado force.

Despite being constantly assured that inter-service rivalry is a thing the past and that the RAF was 100% behind the carrier project, there has always been discussion of an alternative agenda for F-35. The RAF and MoD would like to dismiss this report as an “uninformed rumour”, but Deborah Haynes has an outstanding track record of unearthing the real story about what goes on at the MoD. We wrote about these concerns several years ago but this is more substantial evidence that the carrier project has never been loved by the RAF. While there is no doubt that RAF personnel currently involved at the delivery end of the carrier project are committed, skilled and enthusiastic, at more senior levels, the attractions of the F-35A and being unshackled from involvement at sea are the priority.

The decision to procure A or stick with B is expected to be made at next SDSR, probably in 2020 but the split-buy battle has clearly already begun in Whitehall. Air Commodore Bradshaw, the Lighting Force Commander told Janes last month (innocent face) he was “unsure what effect procuring the land-based F-35A might have on the joint concept of operations” and he could see “no reason not to transfer the F-35Bs solely to the RN”. A nice clean compromise this might appear, but the issue is the total number of aircraft needed to ensure credible carrier strike capability. The UK has signed contracts for the purchase of 48 aircraft, the last of which should be delivered by 2024, but the long-term plan is to buy a total of 138. It is the second batch of 90 aircraft that the RAF would like to change to F-35A and take complete ownership of.... [I'm too sadly tired to read the rest]

...The interests of UK defence as a whole?

If the UK had an unlimited defence budget then a split buy and an RAF / FAA divided ownership would be a perfectly valid option. The opposite is the case and all three services should be working together to maximise the return on investment, especially the large outlay already made on the carriers. From the outset, the Lightning Force was always advertised very much as a joint organisation with the RAF working in harmony with the RN to generate its carrier aircraft. Unfortunately, you cannot trumpet the virtues of joint working, one team, one fight etc, while at the same time working to weaken the centrepiece of a sister service for your own single service interest.

The RAF may argue that they have “the strategic interests of the UK as a whole” in mind and they are merely providing their advice to ministers who will take the decision. Unless you have a strong emotional and institutional attachment to land-based deep strike, It is very hard to find much operational or financial justification for the split-buy which comes at the cost of badly undermining Britain’s newly acquired primary conventional deterrent."

Source: https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/raf-pl ... programme/
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

marsavian

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 562
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post01 Dec 2018, 01:29

To B or not to B, RAF and RN already tussling over number of A to be ordered if any. RN make the point that the Voyager refueling aircraft will need amending if A is ordered with the addition of an Aerial Refuelling Boom System needed. 7 out of the 14 Voyagers are KC2 which have the space for the standard ARBS modification. The other 7 are KC3 which already have an additional centerline drogue FRU system. They could theoretically order the C instead to give the RAF the payload and range of the A and not have to modify any Voyagers, plus with the future potential of adding arrestor gear to the carriers so they could be used on them too. This model tussle between the RAF and RN is just going to go on and on but the MoD confirm again that the first 48 are Bs.

https://news.sky.com/story/amp/royal-na ... s-11568074
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 21720
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -1

Unread post01 Dec 2018, 02:31

You may well be correct in whatever you imagine however my imaginings are defined by the awful BIRDIE/CRAB fights of yesteryear. A lot of ex-Fleet Air Arm aircrew of my era do not forget and now we see it happening again. SAD SAD indeed.
"...plus with the future potential of adding arrestor gear to the carriers so they [potential F-35Cs instead of F-35As] could be used on them too...."

You would be aware of the distinct impossibility of such a change given what we know from the BACKFLIP SOMERSAULT and PIKE into a COMPLETE WATER BOMB WIPEOUT of recent UK MoD history? The CVFs have NOT been designed with this possibility in mind - although it was an erroneous meme - propagated by those with vested interest in converting CVFs.
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1534
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post01 Dec 2018, 13:39

I honestly struggle to understand mankind's (in general terms) apparently lack of ability to reach consensus nowadays.

Why can't the RAF/RAN reach a 50-50 agreement on the 138 planned F-35 order? Or to be more precise, 69 F-35Bs and 69 F-35As.
69 is actually a "sexy" number and just like in the real 69, both "partners" would be happy :mrgreen:

(69 F-35Bs are IMO enough to equip both carriers plus having a sizable number stationed on land while 69 F-35As are also an enough number to replace the Tornado).

Consensus and 69's rules! :mrgreen:
Offline

hythelday

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 399
  • Joined: 25 Jul 2016, 12:43

Unread post01 Dec 2018, 14:00

How about they just buy more? :wink:
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1534
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post01 Dec 2018, 14:35

Obviously it's always better to have more than a 69 but if I'll you can get is exactly the 69 then I guess that's not bad at all :mrgreen:
Anyway and regarding Britain, I don't think that due to current events it can handle more than two (2) 69's or more precisely a 138 :wink:
Offline

marsavian

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 562
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post01 Dec 2018, 15:48

72 B so the RN can say they can nominally fill both carriers at the same time with their standard 36 leaving 66 for the RAF for 3-4 squadrons plus 7 voyagers will need a centerline boom fitted. This will run and run for each spending procurement decision as you have two services fighting over one resource. I will be very surprised if the RAF don't pick up at least 38 A but the government at any one time will decide the total split remembering politics caused this C muddle thread in the first place ;).
Online
User avatar

blindpilot

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1157
  • Joined: 01 Mar 2013, 18:21
  • Location: Colorado

Unread post01 Dec 2018, 16:56

ricnunes wrote:I honestly struggle to understand mankind's (in general terms) apparently lack of ability to reach consensus nowadays.

Why can't the RAF/RAN reach a 50-50 agreement ...


Well, 50/50 fairness has some serious draw backs.

If you and I are moving from Albuquerque NM to Los Angelos, and you have a big old monster truck with a mega V 8 engine, and I am driving a Prius, we could split the gas bill and the gallons 50/50 ... only fair .. and by the way I need you to carry my piano. I'll carry your hamster cage. only fair.

So 50/50 I get to LA with your hamsters, but you sort of sit in the desert dead with my piano ... 50/50 and all :D no music for your hamsters. If we are going to do that, we might as well sell your truck and my piano, ride in my Prius and buy whatever at the other end. But giving you half the gas for your truck is worthless.

It only gets worse at the other end, when I get to buy me a truck and a piano, and you end up on Hollywood Ave. with a hamster cage. That's the basic RAF mode of operation ...

Yeah 50/50 .... sounds great! ... for me! (the RAF). Gotta love fairness opinions disconnected from the real world.

MHO,
BP
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: blindpilot and 9 guests