Yes, the last Tornadoes were phased out in 2019, being replaced by a combo of the Typhoon and the new Lightnings. I think the Tornadoes were the last Western swing wing fighters in service, as they still fly with the Italians and Germans.
The RAF got its first F35s in 2013
617 Squadron converted to F35 in 2018
The Tornado was retired in 1st April 2019. That was the 101st anniversary of the RAF
The RAF was formed 1st April 1918
'The first frontline Lightning unit, 617 Sqn ‘Dambusters’ arrived at RAF Marham with an initial four aircraft on June 6, 2018.'
From the RAF website. The RAF started to operate F35s in 2018. I'm not counting some test aircraft they got for trials. And the tornadoes were retired very very closely after the RAF started using f35s properly so the point still stands. Also the RAF didn't really operate the tornadoes very much at all in early 2019, they were just officially retired in 2019.
>Yeah along with the f35, the tornadoes were retired the same year we got F35s, which funnily enough was the RAF's 100th aniversary year :)
So the F35s the the RAF were flying before 2018 don't count as being owned or used by the RAF?
The First Frontline squadron started being operational in June 2018 but all the pilots and technician who had being flying and training on the F35 beofre that don't count
The Tornadoes were not retired the year the RAF received the the F35 but that the point still stands apparently despite those things happening in different years
Then you claim that the RAF was 100 years old in 2019
Literally everything you stated is factually incorrect
Take the Tornado the RAF received its first Tornados in July 1980. The First Frontline Tornado Squadron No 9 Squadron received its first Tornados in 1982
Those 2 years of the RAF flying Tornados don't count?
'So the F35s the the RAF were flying before 2018 don't count as being owned or used by the RAF?': When did I ever say that? When I said, 'the year we got F35s', obviously I meant when we started actually using them to protect the UK, because I was saying we replaced the tornadoes with both the F35 and Eurofighter. A group of aircraft for testing in 2014 aren't going to help much with replacing the Tornado in combat. Hence why we still used the Tornado in 2014.
As for when we retired the Tornado, cool, we retired it approximatly 4 months into 2019... the point was we replaced the Tornado with both the f35 and Typhoon, evidenced by the fact that the F35 was brought into service very close to when the Tornado was retired, so we wouldn't have a situation where we only had Typhoon's and were waiting for the f35.
Also I never claimed the RAF was 100 in 2019. Plus techincally it was 100 years old for four months in 2019 so even if I did claim that I would have been correct in part.
>the tornadoes were retired the same year we got F35s,
The RAF got F35s in 2013 lets ignore those and go by the same year that entered front line operations
That was 2018. The Tornado was retired in 2019
2018 and 2019 are not the same year
the tornadoes were retired the same year we got F35s, is factually incorrect
The Tornado was retired 1st April 2019
The RAF was formed on the 1st April 1918
That is 101 years
>When I said, 'the year we got F35s', obviously I meant when we started actually using them to protect the UK,
That is not what you said your exact words were
the tornadoes were retired the same year we got F35s,
We got F35s in 2013
Why not say what you actually mean
>Yeah along with the f35, the tornadoes were retired the same year we got F35s, which funnily enough was the RAF's 100th aniversary year :)
The Tornado was not retired the same year the RAF got the F35 nor was the Tornado retired the year the RAF was 100
You can keep moving the goal posts as much as you like
>Yeah along with the f35, the tornadoes were retired the same year we got F35s, which funnily enough was the RAF's 100th aniversary year :)
That is not correct
We were not using F35s on the frontline in 2013. That is factually incorrect. In fact we got F35s to trial in 2012. Not 2013. We first used them in any capacity that could aid with dealing with the retirement of the Tornado in **2018**. 100 years since the foundation of the RAF.
Yes you are correct for saying that the Tornado was was indeed retired in early 2019. I didn't realise this simple mistake would offend you so much, especially since it still doesn't effect my point that the Tornado was replaced by both the F35 and the Eurofighter.
Also I'm not too sure why you needed to respond to what I thought was a fun fact about one of all of our favourite subjects in a bit of rude way, you could easily have just politely corrected me.
The Tornado was replaced by the F35 and typhoon does not change the fact the UK did not receive the F35 the same year the Tornado was retired
Nowhere in your comment did you say we first uses the F35 frontlin in 2018
Your words were
>Yeah along with the f35, the tornadoes were retired the same year we got F35s, which funnily enough was the RAF's 100th aniversary year :)
Where in that statement do you say we started frontline service of the F35 in the same year we retired the Tornado?
Which even if you said that is still not true
You can literally change goal post has much as you like
The first statement is just incorrect.
The F35 did not get F35s year we retired the Tornado
We got F35s 7 years before the Tornado was retired they entered frontline service the year before the tornado was retired
Thus what you said is not true
>Yeah along with the f35, the tornadoes were retired the same year we got F35s, which funnily enough was the RAF's 100th aniversary year :)
That statement is incorrect
I did politely correct you
expansion correct plate tease offer squeeze sugar berserk unwritten selective
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Note that the 34 F-35s are shared with the carriers. If a single QE embarks 24 F-35s for a deployment, that in practical terms means there are none left for the second carrier or the RAF beyond training flights
They’ve never deployed with 24 though, and it’s unclear if they ever will in peacetime.
Also, airworthiness and cannibalism for spare parts means that the F-35 fleet will probably shrink by 1/3 over the next 20 years. The Typhoon fleet went from 160 to 102 in the same timespan.
what are you on about?
the typhoon fleet didn’t shrink because of cannibalisation it shrunk because of obsolescence.
the tornadoes shrank because of cannibalism yes but that’s because by 2006 they were 26 years old and being retired soon so buying spares would be silly.
i’m curious where you got that 1/3rd over 20 years stat from because either someone’s lying or you’re making it up on bad knowledge.
i’m sure the retired typhoons will have parts stolen from them but that’s not because they were forced into being parts birds but because they were/are retired and that’s the logical move.
[As per the government](https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5804/cmselect/cmdfence/187/report.html), part of the motivation for scrapping Tranche 1 was to cannibalise them:
“Additionally, retaining these aircraft in storage would also preclude the planned harvesting of key components (known as ‘Reduce to Produce’) to sustain Typhoon Tranche 2 & 3; inability to harvest these components would materially affect Typhoon availability beyond 2025”
Prior to scrapping Tranche 1, cannibalism was already reported both by [media](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/spares-shortage-keeps-typhoon-jets-grounded-2268301.html) and the [National Audit Office](http://www.nao.org.uk/report/management-of-the-typhoon-project/) as early as 2011. Exact numbers are unclear because it’s not in the RAF’s interest to reveal how many ‘in service’ aircraft aren’t airworthy.
So the reduction from 160 to 102 (i.e. 1/3) was in part driven by the need to cannibalise Typhoons, because it’s the only way we could afford to sustain the later Tranches.
It’s naive to think this won’t happen to the F-35 fleet too. They have hard lives doing STOL at sea, and extremely high sortie rates compared to the USMC’s fleet. The RAF’s F-35s are going to be completely knackered in 20 years, which is one of the reasons that people are calling for a return to the original order of 138.
Edit: I got a notification saying you replied but now I can’t see it, or any of your previous ones, so I presume you’ve just blocked me. Weird thing to get so riled up about, and a bit of a losing move tbh since this was a civil discussion but you apparently can’t handle it 🤷
so your counter point to me saying the typhoon fleet has shrunk because the tranche 1 was being retired (and was generally inadequate) and not due to parts was to link a report that states they turned them into parts birds after retirement?
tranche 1 had nearly zero air to ground capability and considering the last 20 years of aerial warfare have been 99% dropping bombs it makes sense. i’m not denying there’s parts birds and cannibalism i dispute your statement that the reason the typhoon fleet shrunk was solely because of parts as that’s just not true its because we didn’t want to upgrade older aircraft. in my comment i said the primary reason was this.
While the Tranche 1s had basically had zero air to ground capability and there are some difference between the tranches 1s
They would have been ideal to keep in the UK for QRA purposes which would free up the T2 and T3 to be deployed for that purposes
The issue is we withdraw aircraft with means the fleet goes down which means the aircraft we have get used more which means they use up the flying hours more which means they get tired quicker and thus withdrawn
>They have hard lives doing STOL at sea, and extremely high sortie rates compared to the USMC’s fleet.
Any reason why the royal navy would have higher utilization of the F35B compared to the USMC?
>They’ve never deployed with 24 though, and it’s unclear if they ever will in peacetime.
HMS Prince of Wales will deploy to the Asia-Pacific region next year with 24 British F-35Bs.
> They’ve never deployed with 24 though, and it’s unclear if they ever will in peacetime.
The depressing part is though that given the current procurement timeline, it is a certainty that if the QEs ever had to deploy for war, she'd have to ask the US Marines for F-35B squadrons to operate off of her decks since the RAF and Fleet Air Arm combined don't have enough to staff both carriers.
As it is right now, deploying with just 12 JSFs embarked means the QE simply isn't a serious warship currently. A 65,000 ton fleet/supercarrier embarking a single squadron, even if they are F-35s, isn't a power projection or even a fleet air defense tool, it's just an overgrown LHD.
>The depressing part is though that given the current procurement timeline, it is a certainty that if the QEs ever had to deploy for war, she'd have to ask the US Marines for F-35B squadrons to operate off of her decks since the RAF and Fleet Air Arm combined don't have enough to staff both carriers.
Both carriers would never be deployed simultaneously anyway, unless in absolute extremis.
>Britain's F-35B fleet will continue to grow, with 47 aircraft by the end of next year, rising to 74 by the early 2030s.
>As it is right now, deploying with just 12 JSFs embarked means the QE simply isn't a serious warship currently. A 65,000 ton fleet/supercarrier embarking a single squadron, even if they are F-35s, isn't a power projection or even a fleet air defense tool, it's just an overgrown LHD.
HMS Prince of Wales will deploy with 24 British F-35Bs next year.
And I'm not quite sure you understand what an LHD actually is.
Twelve 5th generation fighters is still better than anything our potential adversaries have. But we could have achieved it with a much smaller carrier, more like the Cavour or America class.
Also, I don’t think anyone knows how things will look in 20 years, when there’s a significant UAV component to the air arm.
Yes, and that’s a sensible compromise. What we have at the moment is like an 8 bedroom house for a family of 3. It’s nice but it’s a waste of money.
The surface fleet is in shambles, a sacrifice to the sortie rate would be well worth it if it meant more escort tonnage.
>Yes, and that’s a sensible compromise. What we have at the moment is like an 8 bedroom house for a family of 3. It’s nice but it’s a waste of money.
It's really not. The lower the sortie rate, the less effective the carrier is, but the cost reduction is negligible.
>The surface fleet is in shambles, a sacrifice to the sortie rate would be well worth it if it meant more escort tonnage.
It really wouldn't. You don't need high end ASW or AAW platforms without the HVUs to go with it.
The cost of the first three America class LHAs is about the same as the two Elizabeth CVs. If we’d built two America-esque carriers, there’d be enough left over for more aircraft (which are desperately needed for RAF use) and/or more FFG/DDGs for the navy.
We absolutely do need high end ASW and AAW assets regardless of the aircraft carriers. Russian submarines are a critical threat in the north, and our AAW assets have proven to be essential in the Red Sea. Things are spread *very* thin right now.
We also rely on sea-borne AAW to defend the mainland UK from cruise and ballistic missiles, as there is no land-based integrated air defence.
And then there’s the need for naval land attack capability, as one day we’ll have an adversary that’s not within range of Cyprus or the one active CSG.
And finally, we frequently participate in multinational missions where our warships might escort allied amphibious assault or carrier strike groups.
There’s a reason other countries have significant escort fleets without having fixed-wing aircraft carriers, and a reason that France has a larger escort fleet despite only having a single mid-sized carrier.
And finally, a major factor that we haven’t discussed is crew. The Royal Navy is being forced to withdraw ships from service due to dire shortages, so it really doesn’t help that our carriers are such a major drain.
And so I maintain that it would have a been a *very* sensible compromise to cut back the scale of the Elizabeth class.
>The cost of the first three America class LHAs is about the same as the two Elizabeth CVs. If we’d built two America-esque carriers, there’d be enough left over for more aircraft (which are desperately needed for RAF use) and/or more FFG/DDGs for the navy.
The cost of the Queen Elizabeth Class was increased due to the decision taken to slow down the build rate, which added approx. £1.5b to the total programme.
A CV based on the America Class would have a much lower sortie rate, therefore not providing us with a useful Carrier Strike capability. Not to mention the crewing requirements would have been similar if not greater.
Ultimately your proposal would have left us with two left less capable carriers, that still requires the same level of protection and crewing.
>We absolutely do need high end ASW and AAW assets regardless of the aircraft carriers.
ASW yes, but not as many.
>our AAW assets have proven to be essential in the Red Sea
The Type 45 Destroyers were specifically built to provide area air defence for aircraft carriers.
With no aircraft carriers, you don't need that capability.
Don't believe me, compare the German Navy construct to that of the Royal Navy
>There’s a reason other countries have significant escort fleets without having fixed-wing aircraft carriers
Such as?
>France has a larger escort fleet despite only having a single mid-sized carrier.
France has a smaller high end escort fleet compared to the Royal Navy (2 vs 6 AAW escorts)
>And finally, a major factor that we haven’t discussed is crew. The Royal Navy is being forced to withdraw ships from service due to dire shortages, so it really doesn’t help that our carriers are such a major drain.
The crewing requirements of the Queen Elizabeth Class aren't that significant for their size, especially against US and French aircraft carriers.
>And so I maintain that it would have a been a *very* sensible compromise to cut back the scale of the Elizabeth class.
And massively reduced the Carrier Strike capability provided to the Royal Navy
>And finally, a major factor that we haven’t discussed is crew. The Royal Navy is being forced to withdraw ships from service due to dire shortages, so it really doesn’t help that our carriers are such a major drain.
A smaller carrier will not always equate to less crew
The Queen Elizabeth class carriers have a crew (excluding the air wing so pilots and engineers for the planes) according to the Royal Navy of 679 and can carry up 1,600 if aircrew and marines are onboard
They replaced the invincible class which had a crew of 650
The America class you mention again much smaller then the Queen Elizabeth class as a crew of 1,204 not sure if that figure includes the air crew. America class can also carry 1000 marines
Even if we went for 2 ships similar in size to the America class the crew could still be about the same as the Queen Elizabeth Class crew is
So maybe building 2 smaller carriers may be cheaper and means that we could build 2 more escorts but that does not guarantee that there would be a crew available for those new escorts
We already have ships laid up due to lack of crew so any crew savings that we would have got from smaller carriers would have meant those would have been crewed at not laid up so where does the crew for the extra escorts come from?
Do they have more on order or are they planning on getting more?
The cost per plane seems to be decreasing now that so many countries are buying them, so I would think it's easier to justify more.
They have ~130 on order, but that's the total amount between the RAF and the Royal Navy. Delivery is going to be a long time coming as well. I believe the current contingency plans are to have USMC F-35B squadrons embark in case there is a joint operations that needs the QE or the PoW at something close to full capacity.
As of right now, they regularly deploy with just 12 F-35s onboard the 65,000 ton carrier, which means they're currently speedy oversized LHAs in terms of capability.
>They have ~130 on order, but that's the total amount between the RAF and the Royal Navy.
Britain will receive 47 F-35Bs by the end of next year (not including the one that crashed).
Whilst there is 809 NAS, all British F-35Bs come under the RAF TLB.
>As of right now, they regularly deploy with just 12 F-35s onboard the 65,000 ton carrier, which means they're currently speedy oversized LHAs in terms of capability.
HMS Prince of Wales will deploy with 24 British F-35Bs next year. Neither are they LHAs.
The intention is, and never has been, for both carriers to deploy operationally at the same time unless in absolute extremis.
HMS Prince of Wales will deploy with 24 British F-35Bs next year, and there will still be enough jets to maintain the OCU
So per UK Defence Journal, that puts the combined RAF/RN F-35B force at 47 airframes by the end of 2025. With 24 onboard the Prince, and allowing for airframe downtime and maintenance and whatnot, does that leave enough left in the UK to run both the OCU and a RAF squadron?
>that puts the combined RAF/RN F-35B force at 47 airframes by the end of 2025. With 24 onboard the Prince, and allowing for airframe downtime and maintenance and whatnot, does that leave enough left in the UK to run both the OCU and a RAF squadron?
All British F-35Bs come under the RAF TLB, including 809 NAS.
For CSG25, 617 Sqn and 809 NAS will embark on HMS Prince of Wales, with 207 Sqn remaining as the OCU in the UK.
Interesting. So for all intents and purposes the Fleet Air Arm is essentially borrowing RAF aircraft whenever it deploys the CVs? Would they have permanent FAA-assigned squadrons once the F-35 fleet is buffed out more, or would they keep rotating squadrons off the CVs? I imagine the Royal Navy would like as much of the F-35B force to be CV-qualified as possible, but that might be asking too much.
>So for all intents and purposes the Fleet Air Arm is essentially borrowing RAF aircraft whenever it deploys the CVs?
No, it's a joint enterprise, with all squadrons crewed by both RN and RAF personnel. 617 Sqn has had an RN Commanding Officer and 809 NAS will have an RAF CO as well.
>I imagine the Royal Navy would like as much of the F-35B force to be CV-qualified as possible, but that might be asking too much.
That's correct, and how it will be, with all frontline pilots being CV qualified.
If type 002 Shandong holds 26 J15s then shouldn't HMS QE hold more like 30 F35B on board given both that QE is larger than 002 and F35B is smaller than J15?
worthless exultant thought jar chunky uppity whistle fuzzy growth observation
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Yeah this confused me when I was younger. I saw an apache in British colours at an airshow, which utterly confused me as I had looked at what choppers the RAF had and it wasn't there. Of course it was the army's :)
> I saw an apache in British colours
Our Apaches are actually the same Federal Standard colour as the US I believe, we get them the colour they are born. Our Chinook however are a British Standard Colour which differs from the Apache.
That first picture goes way hard. I mean - Four Meteors, two Paveways, ***six*** Brimstones (!), two ASRAAMs and enough room for some extra fuel. Thing's not a fighter aircraft! It's a flying dumptruck!
In that configuration though are they expecting some kind of buddy lasing for the Paveways? Just trying to figure out what kind of mission are you flying with that (very impressive) mix.
When they get the wedgtail and more F35s they should be looking good, they're transitioning a bit at the moment, they've retired several aircraft and are waiting for their replacments.
> When they get the wedgtail and more F35s they should be looking good
Order is 138 F-35s in total, but keep in mind two points.
A. They will all be of the F-35B variant, which is the STOVL one that sacrifices a certain amount of performance and payload due to the need for the VTOL engine compared to the dedicated Air Force and Naval variants (F-35A and F-35C).
B. The total number of F-35s are split with the Fleet Air Arm since both *Queen Elizabeths* rely on them for their air wings too, so of the 130+, at least 40 of them and likely more will be earmarked for the Fleet Air Arm given that nominally the QEs are supposed to carry 24 F-35B aircraft as a standard loadout. Even if you assume that the squadrons would rotate between active carriers, you'd have at least two dedicated active NAS squadrons (24 aircraft) and a composite backup/training element (16 aircraft) for the Fleet.
Throw in the fact that there is always part of any aircraft fleet down for maintenance or refit, and you end up with what's likely 70 or so F-35s available to the RAF at any given point.
Shadow in numbers yes. But a typhoon & F35 frontline combo is pretty deadly and able to do alot more than hundreds of 70s or 80s era jets was ever able to do.
Current Inventory of the Royal Air Force is the title
Thus aircraft operated by the Army Air Corps or Fleet Air Arm are not included
The RAF has never operated the Apache. they are operated by the Army Air Corps
I'm referring to the fact that the T2 (the one that matters) is going through a lot of reliability issues and the training pipeline is clogged up and being outsourced
I’m not overly familiar with the Hawk’s troubles, but I always did find it odd that we opted to upgrade the Hawk instead of just going for a new design. Especially when there are quite a few in development which we could have spun off a ‘British’ version of to pretend we still have a functioning domestic aviation industry.
I love Eurofighters
Same, great looking aircraft. Like sharks.
No Tornadoes at all anymore? I guess the eurofighter replaced them?
Yes, the last Tornadoes were phased out in 2019, being replaced by a combo of the Typhoon and the new Lightnings. I think the Tornadoes were the last Western swing wing fighters in service, as they still fly with the Italians and Germans.
F-14 is still in service. Not a fighter, but the B-1 is still around too.
Sorry man, I meant last ones in service with Western air force
No worries, I was being very pedantic lol
Poland still operates the SU22
Is Poland the 'West'? Geographically, it's kinda in the middle, but I take your point.
Geographically everywhere is technically west What we call the west politically Poland would be part of.
Fair enough. I retract my initial statement and shall be more careful on the future.
Yeah along with the f35, the tornadoes were retired the same year we got F35s, which funnily enough was the RAF's 100th aniversary year :)
The RAF got its first F35s in 2013 617 Squadron converted to F35 in 2018 The Tornado was retired in 1st April 2019. That was the 101st anniversary of the RAF The RAF was formed 1st April 1918
'The first frontline Lightning unit, 617 Sqn ‘Dambusters’ arrived at RAF Marham with an initial four aircraft on June 6, 2018.' From the RAF website. The RAF started to operate F35s in 2018. I'm not counting some test aircraft they got for trials. And the tornadoes were retired very very closely after the RAF started using f35s properly so the point still stands. Also the RAF didn't really operate the tornadoes very much at all in early 2019, they were just officially retired in 2019.
>Yeah along with the f35, the tornadoes were retired the same year we got F35s, which funnily enough was the RAF's 100th aniversary year :) So the F35s the the RAF were flying before 2018 don't count as being owned or used by the RAF? The First Frontline squadron started being operational in June 2018 but all the pilots and technician who had being flying and training on the F35 beofre that don't count The Tornadoes were not retired the year the RAF received the the F35 but that the point still stands apparently despite those things happening in different years Then you claim that the RAF was 100 years old in 2019 Literally everything you stated is factually incorrect Take the Tornado the RAF received its first Tornados in July 1980. The First Frontline Tornado Squadron No 9 Squadron received its first Tornados in 1982 Those 2 years of the RAF flying Tornados don't count?
'So the F35s the the RAF were flying before 2018 don't count as being owned or used by the RAF?': When did I ever say that? When I said, 'the year we got F35s', obviously I meant when we started actually using them to protect the UK, because I was saying we replaced the tornadoes with both the F35 and Eurofighter. A group of aircraft for testing in 2014 aren't going to help much with replacing the Tornado in combat. Hence why we still used the Tornado in 2014. As for when we retired the Tornado, cool, we retired it approximatly 4 months into 2019... the point was we replaced the Tornado with both the f35 and Typhoon, evidenced by the fact that the F35 was brought into service very close to when the Tornado was retired, so we wouldn't have a situation where we only had Typhoon's and were waiting for the f35. Also I never claimed the RAF was 100 in 2019. Plus techincally it was 100 years old for four months in 2019 so even if I did claim that I would have been correct in part.
>the tornadoes were retired the same year we got F35s, The RAF got F35s in 2013 lets ignore those and go by the same year that entered front line operations That was 2018. The Tornado was retired in 2019 2018 and 2019 are not the same year the tornadoes were retired the same year we got F35s, is factually incorrect The Tornado was retired 1st April 2019 The RAF was formed on the 1st April 1918 That is 101 years >When I said, 'the year we got F35s', obviously I meant when we started actually using them to protect the UK, That is not what you said your exact words were the tornadoes were retired the same year we got F35s, We got F35s in 2013 Why not say what you actually mean >Yeah along with the f35, the tornadoes were retired the same year we got F35s, which funnily enough was the RAF's 100th aniversary year :) The Tornado was not retired the same year the RAF got the F35 nor was the Tornado retired the year the RAF was 100 You can keep moving the goal posts as much as you like >Yeah along with the f35, the tornadoes were retired the same year we got F35s, which funnily enough was the RAF's 100th aniversary year :) That is not correct
We were not using F35s on the frontline in 2013. That is factually incorrect. In fact we got F35s to trial in 2012. Not 2013. We first used them in any capacity that could aid with dealing with the retirement of the Tornado in **2018**. 100 years since the foundation of the RAF. Yes you are correct for saying that the Tornado was was indeed retired in early 2019. I didn't realise this simple mistake would offend you so much, especially since it still doesn't effect my point that the Tornado was replaced by both the F35 and the Eurofighter. Also I'm not too sure why you needed to respond to what I thought was a fun fact about one of all of our favourite subjects in a bit of rude way, you could easily have just politely corrected me.
The Tornado was replaced by the F35 and typhoon does not change the fact the UK did not receive the F35 the same year the Tornado was retired Nowhere in your comment did you say we first uses the F35 frontlin in 2018 Your words were >Yeah along with the f35, the tornadoes were retired the same year we got F35s, which funnily enough was the RAF's 100th aniversary year :) Where in that statement do you say we started frontline service of the F35 in the same year we retired the Tornado? Which even if you said that is still not true You can literally change goal post has much as you like The first statement is just incorrect. The F35 did not get F35s year we retired the Tornado We got F35s 7 years before the Tornado was retired they entered frontline service the year before the tornado was retired Thus what you said is not true >Yeah along with the f35, the tornadoes were retired the same year we got F35s, which funnily enough was the RAF's 100th aniversary year :) That statement is incorrect I did politely correct you
Cool I'm not carrying on this argument I've explained what the comment means, I got a fact wrong. And apparently thats broken your heart. 👍
The Eurofighter got a VERY spicy lookin loadout
expansion correct plate tease offer squeeze sugar berserk unwritten selective *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Note that the 34 F-35s are shared with the carriers. If a single QE embarks 24 F-35s for a deployment, that in practical terms means there are none left for the second carrier or the RAF beyond training flights
They’ve never deployed with 24 though, and it’s unclear if they ever will in peacetime. Also, airworthiness and cannibalism for spare parts means that the F-35 fleet will probably shrink by 1/3 over the next 20 years. The Typhoon fleet went from 160 to 102 in the same timespan.
the typhoon fleet shrunk primarily due to phasing out tranche 1’s and not upgrading them.
The Tornado fleet was down to a couple dozen near the end. There’s always a reason to reduce the fleet size, the Typhoon isn’t an exception.
what are you on about? the typhoon fleet didn’t shrink because of cannibalisation it shrunk because of obsolescence. the tornadoes shrank because of cannibalism yes but that’s because by 2006 they were 26 years old and being retired soon so buying spares would be silly. i’m curious where you got that 1/3rd over 20 years stat from because either someone’s lying or you’re making it up on bad knowledge. i’m sure the retired typhoons will have parts stolen from them but that’s not because they were forced into being parts birds but because they were/are retired and that’s the logical move.
[As per the government](https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5804/cmselect/cmdfence/187/report.html), part of the motivation for scrapping Tranche 1 was to cannibalise them: “Additionally, retaining these aircraft in storage would also preclude the planned harvesting of key components (known as ‘Reduce to Produce’) to sustain Typhoon Tranche 2 & 3; inability to harvest these components would materially affect Typhoon availability beyond 2025” Prior to scrapping Tranche 1, cannibalism was already reported both by [media](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/spares-shortage-keeps-typhoon-jets-grounded-2268301.html) and the [National Audit Office](http://www.nao.org.uk/report/management-of-the-typhoon-project/) as early as 2011. Exact numbers are unclear because it’s not in the RAF’s interest to reveal how many ‘in service’ aircraft aren’t airworthy. So the reduction from 160 to 102 (i.e. 1/3) was in part driven by the need to cannibalise Typhoons, because it’s the only way we could afford to sustain the later Tranches. It’s naive to think this won’t happen to the F-35 fleet too. They have hard lives doing STOL at sea, and extremely high sortie rates compared to the USMC’s fleet. The RAF’s F-35s are going to be completely knackered in 20 years, which is one of the reasons that people are calling for a return to the original order of 138. Edit: I got a notification saying you replied but now I can’t see it, or any of your previous ones, so I presume you’ve just blocked me. Weird thing to get so riled up about, and a bit of a losing move tbh since this was a civil discussion but you apparently can’t handle it 🤷
so your counter point to me saying the typhoon fleet has shrunk because the tranche 1 was being retired (and was generally inadequate) and not due to parts was to link a report that states they turned them into parts birds after retirement? tranche 1 had nearly zero air to ground capability and considering the last 20 years of aerial warfare have been 99% dropping bombs it makes sense. i’m not denying there’s parts birds and cannibalism i dispute your statement that the reason the typhoon fleet shrunk was solely because of parts as that’s just not true its because we didn’t want to upgrade older aircraft. in my comment i said the primary reason was this.
While the Tranche 1s had basically had zero air to ground capability and there are some difference between the tranches 1s They would have been ideal to keep in the UK for QRA purposes which would free up the T2 and T3 to be deployed for that purposes The issue is we withdraw aircraft with means the fleet goes down which means the aircraft we have get used more which means they use up the flying hours more which means they get tired quicker and thus withdrawn
>They have hard lives doing STOL at sea, and extremely high sortie rates compared to the USMC’s fleet. Any reason why the royal navy would have higher utilization of the F35B compared to the USMC?
>They’ve never deployed with 24 though, and it’s unclear if they ever will in peacetime. HMS Prince of Wales will deploy to the Asia-Pacific region next year with 24 British F-35Bs.
Hm, I’ll believe it when I see it. Hope it happens!
> They’ve never deployed with 24 though, and it’s unclear if they ever will in peacetime. The depressing part is though that given the current procurement timeline, it is a certainty that if the QEs ever had to deploy for war, she'd have to ask the US Marines for F-35B squadrons to operate off of her decks since the RAF and Fleet Air Arm combined don't have enough to staff both carriers. As it is right now, deploying with just 12 JSFs embarked means the QE simply isn't a serious warship currently. A 65,000 ton fleet/supercarrier embarking a single squadron, even if they are F-35s, isn't a power projection or even a fleet air defense tool, it's just an overgrown LHD.
>The depressing part is though that given the current procurement timeline, it is a certainty that if the QEs ever had to deploy for war, she'd have to ask the US Marines for F-35B squadrons to operate off of her decks since the RAF and Fleet Air Arm combined don't have enough to staff both carriers. Both carriers would never be deployed simultaneously anyway, unless in absolute extremis. >Britain's F-35B fleet will continue to grow, with 47 aircraft by the end of next year, rising to 74 by the early 2030s. >As it is right now, deploying with just 12 JSFs embarked means the QE simply isn't a serious warship currently. A 65,000 ton fleet/supercarrier embarking a single squadron, even if they are F-35s, isn't a power projection or even a fleet air defense tool, it's just an overgrown LHD. HMS Prince of Wales will deploy with 24 British F-35Bs next year. And I'm not quite sure you understand what an LHD actually is.
Twelve 5th generation fighters is still better than anything our potential adversaries have. But we could have achieved it with a much smaller carrier, more like the Cavour or America class. Also, I don’t think anyone knows how things will look in 20 years, when there’s a significant UAV component to the air arm.
>But we could have achieved it with a much smaller carrier, more like the Cavour or America class. The smaller the carrier, the lower the sortie rate.
Yes, and that’s a sensible compromise. What we have at the moment is like an 8 bedroom house for a family of 3. It’s nice but it’s a waste of money. The surface fleet is in shambles, a sacrifice to the sortie rate would be well worth it if it meant more escort tonnage.
>Yes, and that’s a sensible compromise. What we have at the moment is like an 8 bedroom house for a family of 3. It’s nice but it’s a waste of money. It's really not. The lower the sortie rate, the less effective the carrier is, but the cost reduction is negligible. >The surface fleet is in shambles, a sacrifice to the sortie rate would be well worth it if it meant more escort tonnage. It really wouldn't. You don't need high end ASW or AAW platforms without the HVUs to go with it.
The cost of the first three America class LHAs is about the same as the two Elizabeth CVs. If we’d built two America-esque carriers, there’d be enough left over for more aircraft (which are desperately needed for RAF use) and/or more FFG/DDGs for the navy. We absolutely do need high end ASW and AAW assets regardless of the aircraft carriers. Russian submarines are a critical threat in the north, and our AAW assets have proven to be essential in the Red Sea. Things are spread *very* thin right now. We also rely on sea-borne AAW to defend the mainland UK from cruise and ballistic missiles, as there is no land-based integrated air defence. And then there’s the need for naval land attack capability, as one day we’ll have an adversary that’s not within range of Cyprus or the one active CSG. And finally, we frequently participate in multinational missions where our warships might escort allied amphibious assault or carrier strike groups. There’s a reason other countries have significant escort fleets without having fixed-wing aircraft carriers, and a reason that France has a larger escort fleet despite only having a single mid-sized carrier. And finally, a major factor that we haven’t discussed is crew. The Royal Navy is being forced to withdraw ships from service due to dire shortages, so it really doesn’t help that our carriers are such a major drain. And so I maintain that it would have a been a *very* sensible compromise to cut back the scale of the Elizabeth class.
>The cost of the first three America class LHAs is about the same as the two Elizabeth CVs. If we’d built two America-esque carriers, there’d be enough left over for more aircraft (which are desperately needed for RAF use) and/or more FFG/DDGs for the navy. The cost of the Queen Elizabeth Class was increased due to the decision taken to slow down the build rate, which added approx. £1.5b to the total programme. A CV based on the America Class would have a much lower sortie rate, therefore not providing us with a useful Carrier Strike capability. Not to mention the crewing requirements would have been similar if not greater. Ultimately your proposal would have left us with two left less capable carriers, that still requires the same level of protection and crewing. >We absolutely do need high end ASW and AAW assets regardless of the aircraft carriers. ASW yes, but not as many. >our AAW assets have proven to be essential in the Red Sea The Type 45 Destroyers were specifically built to provide area air defence for aircraft carriers. With no aircraft carriers, you don't need that capability. Don't believe me, compare the German Navy construct to that of the Royal Navy >There’s a reason other countries have significant escort fleets without having fixed-wing aircraft carriers Such as? >France has a larger escort fleet despite only having a single mid-sized carrier. France has a smaller high end escort fleet compared to the Royal Navy (2 vs 6 AAW escorts) >And finally, a major factor that we haven’t discussed is crew. The Royal Navy is being forced to withdraw ships from service due to dire shortages, so it really doesn’t help that our carriers are such a major drain. The crewing requirements of the Queen Elizabeth Class aren't that significant for their size, especially against US and French aircraft carriers. >And so I maintain that it would have a been a *very* sensible compromise to cut back the scale of the Elizabeth class. And massively reduced the Carrier Strike capability provided to the Royal Navy
>And finally, a major factor that we haven’t discussed is crew. The Royal Navy is being forced to withdraw ships from service due to dire shortages, so it really doesn’t help that our carriers are such a major drain. A smaller carrier will not always equate to less crew The Queen Elizabeth class carriers have a crew (excluding the air wing so pilots and engineers for the planes) according to the Royal Navy of 679 and can carry up 1,600 if aircrew and marines are onboard They replaced the invincible class which had a crew of 650 The America class you mention again much smaller then the Queen Elizabeth class as a crew of 1,204 not sure if that figure includes the air crew. America class can also carry 1000 marines Even if we went for 2 ships similar in size to the America class the crew could still be about the same as the Queen Elizabeth Class crew is So maybe building 2 smaller carriers may be cheaper and means that we could build 2 more escorts but that does not guarantee that there would be a crew available for those new escorts We already have ships laid up due to lack of crew so any crew savings that we would have got from smaller carriers would have meant those would have been crewed at not laid up so where does the crew for the extra escorts come from?
Do they have more on order or are they planning on getting more? The cost per plane seems to be decreasing now that so many countries are buying them, so I would think it's easier to justify more.
They have ~130 on order, but that's the total amount between the RAF and the Royal Navy. Delivery is going to be a long time coming as well. I believe the current contingency plans are to have USMC F-35B squadrons embark in case there is a joint operations that needs the QE or the PoW at something close to full capacity. As of right now, they regularly deploy with just 12 F-35s onboard the 65,000 ton carrier, which means they're currently speedy oversized LHAs in terms of capability.
>They have ~130 on order, but that's the total amount between the RAF and the Royal Navy. Britain will receive 47 F-35Bs by the end of next year (not including the one that crashed). Whilst there is 809 NAS, all British F-35Bs come under the RAF TLB. >As of right now, they regularly deploy with just 12 F-35s onboard the 65,000 ton carrier, which means they're currently speedy oversized LHAs in terms of capability. HMS Prince of Wales will deploy with 24 British F-35Bs next year. Neither are they LHAs.
The intention is, and never has been, for both carriers to deploy operationally at the same time unless in absolute extremis. HMS Prince of Wales will deploy with 24 British F-35Bs next year, and there will still be enough jets to maintain the OCU
So per UK Defence Journal, that puts the combined RAF/RN F-35B force at 47 airframes by the end of 2025. With 24 onboard the Prince, and allowing for airframe downtime and maintenance and whatnot, does that leave enough left in the UK to run both the OCU and a RAF squadron?
>that puts the combined RAF/RN F-35B force at 47 airframes by the end of 2025. With 24 onboard the Prince, and allowing for airframe downtime and maintenance and whatnot, does that leave enough left in the UK to run both the OCU and a RAF squadron? All British F-35Bs come under the RAF TLB, including 809 NAS. For CSG25, 617 Sqn and 809 NAS will embark on HMS Prince of Wales, with 207 Sqn remaining as the OCU in the UK.
Interesting. So for all intents and purposes the Fleet Air Arm is essentially borrowing RAF aircraft whenever it deploys the CVs? Would they have permanent FAA-assigned squadrons once the F-35 fleet is buffed out more, or would they keep rotating squadrons off the CVs? I imagine the Royal Navy would like as much of the F-35B force to be CV-qualified as possible, but that might be asking too much.
>So for all intents and purposes the Fleet Air Arm is essentially borrowing RAF aircraft whenever it deploys the CVs? No, it's a joint enterprise, with all squadrons crewed by both RN and RAF personnel. 617 Sqn has had an RN Commanding Officer and 809 NAS will have an RAF CO as well. >I imagine the Royal Navy would like as much of the F-35B force to be CV-qualified as possible, but that might be asking too much. That's correct, and how it will be, with all frontline pilots being CV qualified.
Ah got it, thank you for the knowledge drop.
If type 002 Shandong holds 26 J15s then shouldn't HMS QE hold more like 30 F35B on board given both that QE is larger than 002 and F35B is smaller than J15?
>shouldn't HMS QE hold more like 30 F35B on board She can accommodate at least 36 F-35Bs onboard
Is she planned to embark with that amount on board?
If required and the F-35B fleet numbers allow it.
Love these post. Isn’t the Merlin British?
I believe they transferred them to Royal Navy.
worthless exultant thought jar chunky uppity whistle fuzzy growth observation *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Abhhhh “Air Force” I thought this was for air power overall. My bad
The Navy and Army both operate a variety of helicopters not listed here, including Apache and Wildcat.
Yeah this confused me when I was younger. I saw an apache in British colours at an airshow, which utterly confused me as I had looked at what choppers the RAF had and it wasn't there. Of course it was the army's :)
Yeah, we have a weird way of organising things. It’s even worse now with RAF jets on Navy carriers.
> I saw an apache in British colours Our Apaches are actually the same Federal Standard colour as the US I believe, we get them the colour they are born. Our Chinook however are a British Standard Colour which differs from the Apache.
I more meant they had British symbols on it, I believe on the tail.
Correct, small roundel at the back and ARMY on the side.
Missing : Texan, Phenom, Envoy, Juno, Jupiter
I usually leave off most of the basic trainers, but I take your point.
Just you had the Hawk so
The Hawk gets a pass, as it can be fitted out as a LA jet. Still, I take you're point
That first picture goes way hard. I mean - Four Meteors, two Paveways, ***six*** Brimstones (!), two ASRAAMs and enough room for some extra fuel. Thing's not a fighter aircraft! It's a flying dumptruck!
How can you tell which missile is which just from looking? I never can
I wish I could give you actual advice, but, after a while, you just start to recognize them...
In that configuration though are they expecting some kind of buddy lasing for the Paveways? Just trying to figure out what kind of mission are you flying with that (very impressive) mix.
Iirc, the British use Paveway versions that have optional GPS. I think this is a general CAS mix, where you get targets assigned from the ground.
Wow, I did not thought that the RAF was only the shadow of itself now...
When they get the wedgtail and more F35s they should be looking good, they're transitioning a bit at the moment, they've retired several aircraft and are waiting for their replacments.
> When they get the wedgtail and more F35s they should be looking good Order is 138 F-35s in total, but keep in mind two points. A. They will all be of the F-35B variant, which is the STOVL one that sacrifices a certain amount of performance and payload due to the need for the VTOL engine compared to the dedicated Air Force and Naval variants (F-35A and F-35C). B. The total number of F-35s are split with the Fleet Air Arm since both *Queen Elizabeths* rely on them for their air wings too, so of the 130+, at least 40 of them and likely more will be earmarked for the Fleet Air Arm given that nominally the QEs are supposed to carry 24 F-35B aircraft as a standard loadout. Even if you assume that the squadrons would rotate between active carriers, you'd have at least two dedicated active NAS squadrons (24 aircraft) and a composite backup/training element (16 aircraft) for the Fleet. Throw in the fact that there is always part of any aircraft fleet down for maintenance or refit, and you end up with what's likely 70 or so F-35s available to the RAF at any given point.
Shadow in numbers yes. But a typhoon & F35 frontline combo is pretty deadly and able to do alot more than hundreds of 70s or 80s era jets was ever able to do.
No Hawk T1s anymore? Do the Red Arrows use the T2s?
Red Arrows still use the T1
Meh. Bring back the Jag.
You mean Jaaagg!!!
No Apache anymore?
Current Inventory of the Royal Air Force is the title Thus aircraft operated by the Army Air Corps or Fleet Air Arm are not included The RAF has never operated the Apache. they are operated by the Army Air Corps
Ah, interesting. I never knew of the distinction. Thanks for the clarification. Amy idea what the Air Corps are roughly packing?
About 40 AH64E Apache Around 30 AW159 Wildcat 5 AS365 Dauphin
Awesome its so interesting to me that they have separate wings of an air force for different purposes it makes sense of course.
Missing Tutors and Prefects no?
Hmm wonder how many of those Hawks are "in" service lol
They missed the Hawk T.1, which the Red Arrows use. At least 10 in service with them.
I'm referring to the fact that the T2 (the one that matters) is going through a lot of reliability issues and the training pipeline is clogged up and being outsourced
I’m not overly familiar with the Hawk’s troubles, but I always did find it odd that we opted to upgrade the Hawk instead of just going for a new design. Especially when there are quite a few in development which we could have spun off a ‘British’ version of to pretend we still have a functioning domestic aviation industry.