RAF to get F-35A.

[IndyFan]

It was the media and some politicians. But, yes, you are correct. I vividly remember this "argument" being made.

Scott

Sometimes there is no difference between the media and some politicians.

There was a time when they pretty much opposed any new weapon system, including most of the systems that performed so well in the Gulf War and even way beyond that. The B-1, Apache helicopter, M1 tank, Bradly IFV, and more.

 

[burbguy82]

Maybe the drone operator would be laughing too hard at somebody bringing a corolla?

I was infantry in a weapons company in the Marine Corps. You're a civilian. We studied, a lot, about the use of civilian vehicles as transportation or VBIEDs. Four military aged males in a corolla, with it's suspension bottoming out because of the weight, is a prime target.

All 100% true.

To add, there are many "Corolla" type vehicles with a bunch of added decorations in the shape of bullet holes in them. They dont hold up, and neither do the occupants.

1st hand knowledge, unfortunately.

 

[GON]

All 100% true.

To add, there are many "Corolla" type vehicles with a bunch of added decorations in the shape of bullet holes in them. They dont hold up, and neither do the occupants.

1st hand knowledge, unfortunately.

GWOT tactics are no longer the center of gravity for today's conflicts.

GWOT one needed to look left, right, forward, and back.Today's tactics require the most important place to look is up.

By far, much safer and secure to be in one of 200 white Corollas than to be in a fully armoured vehicle. Not even close.

If one hasn't studied the conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenians, both in 2020 and the 2023 Azerbajiani offensive, they need to if they want to understand the GWOT tactics are dead on a MACRO basis, and have been replaced by very different tactics.

 

[grisby]

Trenches, UAV's and EW are the prevailing skillsets to combatants

 

[Pew]

GWOT tactics are no longer the center of gravity for today's conflicts.

GWOT one needed to look left, right, forward, and back.Today's tactics require the most important place to look is up.

By far, much safer and secure to be in one of 200 white Corollas than to be in a fully armoured vehicle. Not even close.

If one hasn't studied the conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenians, both in 2020 and the 2023 Azerbajiani offensive, they need to if they want to understand the GWOT tactics are dead on a MACRO basis, and have been replaced by very different tactics.

If a front line has been established then there is no need to try to be discrete in a Corolla. Any vehicles approaching the front line can and will be targeted. There's no hiding four male military aged adults in a Corolla with all their gear headed to and around the front line. That's just playing straight into a textbook roadblock operation. At that point you as the driver of the Corolla have handicapped your travel abilities to strictly roads and you can't carry any extra supplies. That would only work if the invading forces have turned into an occupation and both sides have intermixed among the fighting.

 

[GON]

If a front line has been established then there is no need to try to be discrete in a Corolla. Any vehicles approaching the front line can and will be targeted. There's no hiding four male military aged adults in a Corolla with all their gear headed to and around the front line. That's just playing straight into a textbook roadblock operation. At that point you as the driver of the Corolla have handicapped your travel abilities to strictly roads and you can't carry any extra supplies. That would only work if the invading forces have turned into an occupation and both sides have intermixed among the fighting.

Seems you would rather argue than do updated homework..times change, appears the imprint you received at MCRD San Diego is static when it comes to a ever dynamic battlefield.

 

[Astro14]

I thought this thread was about the Royal Air Force and the F 35.

 

[Astro14]

The F-35 also allows the UK to deliver nukes from the air. Their nuclear deterrence, for many decades, has been resident solely in the 4 boomers they have in Faslane.

The UK watched the invasion of Ukraine, with the US and France able to fly nuclear-capable aircraft, while the UK had nothing visible as a deterrence. Between the RN already owning 100% of the nuclear deterrence as well as taking on the lead role of conventional deterrence, including 5th generation airplanes, with the two new Carriers, the RAF is in danger of becoming irrelevant.

The F-35A, with its 5th generation capabilities, and its nuclear mission, restores some of the RAF’s relevance.

 

[IndyFan]

The F-35 also allows the UK to deliver nukes from the air. Their nuclear deterrence, for many decades, has been resident solely in the 4 boomers they have in Faslane.

The UK watched the invasion of Ukraine, with the US and France able to fly nuclear-capable aircraft, while the UK had nothing visible as a deterrence. Between the RN already owning 100% of the nuclear deterrence as well as taking on the lead role of conventional deterrence, including 5th generation airplanes, with the two new Carriers, the RAF is in danger of becoming irrelevant.

The F-35A, with its 5th generation capabilities, and its nuclear mission, restores some of the RAF’s relevance.

The Brits are really dopey when it comes to defense. Less than minimal. This once great island nation had zero anti-sub/maritime patrol capability until the P-8A came along and they had to rush to buy them.

Probably another one of their wonderful defense ¨white papers¨ led to that.

I think their subs are getting long in the tooth, too, so I think the F-35 makes even more sense from that perspective.

On a good note, it appears the Prince of Wales was able to make it to Singapore without breaking down. Maybe they´re getting the bugs worked out of those carriers, finally.

 

[edyvw]

Seems you would rather argue than do updated homework..times change, appears the imprint you received at MCRD San Diego is static when it comes to a ever dynamic battlefield.

Your argument reminds me of Donald Rumsfeld and why so many people died in Iraq.
Helmuth von Moltke said: "No battle plan survives contact with the enemy."

 

[edyvw]

The Brits are really dopey when it comes to defense. Less than minimal. This once great island nation had zero anti-sub/maritime patrol capability until the P-8A came along and they had to rush to buy them.

Probably another one of their wonderful defense ¨white papers¨ led to that.

I think their subs are getting long in the tooth, too, so I think the F-35 makes even more sense from that perspective.

On a good note, it appears the Prince of Wales was able to make it to Singapore without breaking down. Maybe they´re getting the bugs worked out of those carriers, finally.

Subs cannot be replaced. They will have to update the fleet. There is no way around that.
This is a quick increase in capabilities; the RAF is relevant again (as Astro said). Will see what happens in reality around military budgets in Europe. I think 5% is not something that is necessary and might create backlash against investments in the military by the domestic population (easy sell in Poland, not so much in Portugal, Spain etc). That might lead to the development of new platforms.

 

[97prizm]

RN made the decision to go F-35B about 20 years ago. The 2004 Defence White Paper outlined the way ahead for the carriers as VSTOL.

The concern was this: if the EMALS system had problems, then the Prince of Wales and Queen Elizabeth would be white elephants. F-35C offered more range, payload and simpler maintenance, but the all electric architecture of the ships required EMALS to work, and it was still in development at the time.

So, the decision by the RN was for VSTOL, and F-35B. No EMALS needed. Further, if the Airplane slipped in delivery date (and it did, just a bit) then RAF Harrier GR-9s would fill the “gap” (mind the gap…) between the retirement of the RN Harriers and the delivery of the F-35B.

Ultimately, the GR-9s were retired early, too, and there was a gap, but the RN is very happy with the current performance of F-35B.

Unless the RAF has a stealth multi-role fighter, they fall behind other NATO nations and the RN.

That simply won’t do. So, this isn’t “instead of” anything, it is the RAF keeping up.

Are any of the Royal Navy ships CATOBAR now vs STOBAR?

 

[Astro14]

Are any of the Royal Navy ships CATOBAR now vs STOBAR?

No. The cats would have to have been installed early on in construction. Can’t really retrofit with tearing the ships apart to do so.

 

[Pew]

Seems you would rather argue than do updated homework..times change, appears the imprint you received at MCRD San Diego is static when it comes to a ever dynamic battlefield.

Actually, it's called school of infantry as well as learning from combat veterans.

Also, the OP of the Ukraine topic was talking about Ukraine. Not Armenia. Armenia has been a case study for everything insurgency and is pretty close in results of insurgency fighting as oif/oef was.

You also made zero points about any of the armenian conflicts except telling me to read about it. But yes....tell the person who's trained to deal with these exact situations on why a Corolla is better than a 4x4 when driving around the front lines. That why we mount our 50s and mk19s onto Corollas for patrol, right?

 

[Astro14]

Alright folks, if you’re not talking about the F-35, you’re off topic. Start another thread.

 

[Tikka]

The F-35A uses the flying boom system for refueling, the UK only has probe and drogue system. I am not sure how this issue will be overcome. Do USN and USAF have a way that allows refueling of the others aircraft?

 

[IndyFan]

Alright folks, if you’re not talking about the F-35, you’re off topic. Start another thread.

I read an article last night that the F-35A´s for the UK would not have the probe. So RAF tankers can´t refuel them. But they said NATO tankers (US) could, in a crisis.

At first I thought this was another bad British military decision, but the more I think about it, the more it sounds like not such a bad idea. Most of their deployments for actual combat involve being a side kick to the US anyway. And with the nuke mission, it´s probably one way, anyway.

Still, if I were them, I´d go probe/drogue. US Pegasus tankers carry that capability, anyway, every day.

What are your thoughts on that, Astro?

Also, I am wondering what other countries use the flying boom. I think Israel? Not sure who else.

One more, at the margin of the topic....advantage of flying boom is probably faster fuel flow, right? I´ve always assumed that was the main reason.

 

[y_p_w]

One more, at the margin of the topic....advantage of flying boom is probably faster fuel flow, right? I´ve always assumed that was the main reason.

More precise on top of faster flow. I think heavy winds can be an issue with the drogue.

 

[Astro14]

The F-35A uses the flying boom system for refueling, the UK only has probe and drogue system. I am not sure how this issue will be overcome. Do USN and USAF have a way that allows refueling of the others aircraft?

The boom is a USAF only system. It was developed for bombers during the cold war - hard to fly a bomber precisely enough to get "in the basket".

The USN could never get a plane big enough to carry a boom on or off a carrier, and a dedicated "tanker" is an expensive proposition, it takes up deck space while fulfilling only one mission, but various attack aircraft (A-3D, S-3, A-6, A-7, F/A-18) have carried "buddy stores" which allows them to stream a drogue and allows for indigenous refueling from a carrier.

When supporting the USN, the USAF has various drogue systems, including wingtip refueling pods, or a built in drogue (like the KC-10).

 

[Astro14]

The USAF’s new tanker, the KC-46, by the way, came from the factory with two wing refueling pods that stream a drogue.

So, in flight, it can handle either type of receiver. It’s not just for the USN, either, because NATO fighters, and even NATO transports, like the A-400M, have a probe and need the drogue.

Edit: I see that was already mentioned. I forgot that KC-46 was called “Pegasus”.

But even the KC-10, from the 1980s, had a built in drogue. We loved that tanker - huge, tons of gas to give, and a nice big basket well below the slipstream of the airplane.

To use a KC-135 for USN/NATO tanking required putting a drogue on the back of the boom. A genuinely awful set-up.

The boom operator would try and “fly” the basket to where they thought it should go, which makes it a lot like threading a needle, when your wife is holding the needle and trying to help you line up the thread.

The basket itself was called “The Iron Maiden” - because it as a hard 9 foot hose that connected the basket to the boom, and the basket was solid, it was not a drogue. No give. You had to put a “kink” in the hose to get fuel to flow.

It was hard on airplanes and pilots. Very hard.

While flying formation on a tanker in the weather, and in turbulence, you have about a foot fore/aft and about a foot up/down and left/right where fuel would flow and that hard hose would not hit your radome and bust up the airplane.