UK poised to buy 138 F-35s

A report in Sunday papers in the UK is claiming that the defense review due out tomorrow will show the UK is about to sign for 138 F-35Bs. The deal is worth £12B.

BRITAIN is to buy 138 stealth fighter jets in a £12bn deal that will treble the firepower of the UK’s two new aircraft carriers and put the country on a “full war footing” in the Middle East for a generation.

George Osborne reveals today that the centrepiece of the government’s strategic defence review, to be unveiled tomorrow, will be a commitment to give Britain the world’s second most potent carrier strike force after the United States.

www.thesundaytimes.co.uk...

a reply to: Zaphod58

knowing our gov 138 will end up as 25 and Mr Osborne is delusional second carrier force after the us!
does he even know what a us carrier battle group consists of or how many the us could put to sea if required?
we dont even have an operational carrier at the moment never mind the support ships to make up the rest.
utter garbage from our media again.

eta so even IF we get both of our new carriers in the water we will be 3rd along with india, japan and italy behind russia 4 and the us 20

www.globalfirepower.com...

a reply to: Zaphod58

The -B variant is god's own Panavia Tornado/Harrier/SEPECAT Jaguar replacement, so it makes a ton of sense for the UK to be hoping to order a ton of them.

a reply to: ShayneJUK

Have you looked at carriers around the world? The only other nuclear powered carrier is French, and there's only the one. Most of them can barely support fixed wing operations. Two hulls with B models will be potent, especially compared to other carrier forces around the world.

a reply to: Zaphod58

yes www.globalfirepower.com...

how they are powered is not really relevant.

as far as force projection or operational capacity we will still be a long way behind Russia and not even in the same park
as the US even if the F35 does not turn out to be an expensive turkey as some think it will.

The deal is going to be signed, the planes are going to be delivered…

now if they can just work out the bugs.

a reply to: ShayneJUK

I didn't say numbers, I said types. Many if not most of those are only capable of helicopter operations.

It's hugely relevant. A nuclear powered carrier has a smaller logistics tail, stays on station longer, responds faster, etc.

Far behind Russia based on what? A number on a study? Russia has one carrier that historically has spent as much time in Port and being worked on as it has sailing around projecting power. The Russian fleet is maintenance intensive and has always had issues deploying in large numbers.

Where has anyone said that the UK is trying to match the US in any way? The aim is to have the most potent Force behind the US fleet, and having F-35s will go a good way towards that.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Good.

We need state of the art fighters to upadate our ageing fleet thats been gutted with spending cuts.

Our airforce along with our navy is our first line of Defence and it needs to have the sharpest teeth it can get.

a reply to: Zaphod58

true but the carrier alone is one device you still have to find fuel for the support
the carrier may have the loiter time but not on its own in an active theatre.

the russian fleet is old yes but it still way out number ours and they are performing an intensive
modernisation.

none said we are trying to match the US Osborne is claiming we will be number 2 which is just not true
and based on the number of problems the F35 project has had is it wise to rely on what could be an expensive error

a reply to: ShayneJUK

Not having to fuel the carrier means a significant reduction in logistics. You still have to fuel the escorts and supply jet fuel, but with a nuclear carrier you reduce the amount of fuel needed. A conventional carrier group might require three to four supply ships where a nuclear hull requires 1-2 depending on operations tempo.

The Russian surface fleet is stillin piss poor shape. The majority of their modernization has gone to the submarine fleet first. The surface ships are getting overhauls, but aren't being replaced in large numbers. You can only do so much with an overhaul.

How is it not true? You're about to have two fixed wing dedicated carriers, with what will be one of the best day one strike aircraft flying on them. No one else will be even close.

Show me any modern aircraft that hasn't had problems during development. Many of them have gone on to outstanding careers. Some had relatively trouble free development and went in to have fairly serious problems later.

a reply to: Zaphod58

The best analog, I think, for the F-35 is the F-111 and the F-14. Both were equally expensive/ambitious for their time, and both had equally difficult developments and roll-outs that were plagued by problems.

One went on to become one of the greatest A2A platforms of all time, while the other carved out a niche for itself as a respectable, if underrated, strike and ECM aircraft.

The question now, is which trajectory the F-35 seems to be on as an operational system.

a reply to: Barnalby

More F-111 for the US. With the Meteor they'll be more Mudcat for the UK.

shayne is behind the times the uk navy fleet has been ordered the queen elizabeth class carriers are
coming on nice indeed here is some info link
the artisan 3d radar is pretty decent to here is some info on the radar atisan 3d radar fitted

a reply to: Zaphod58

Conceded but a supply chain is still present although smaller so still a vulnerability.

but can still put more metal in the water than we can and if the bulk of that is submarine
then is that not a greater risk to a surface fleet.

yes i agree we will have a shiny new state of the art pair of carriers and planes (eventually)
but the mod has form for buying the latest word in compromised junk that the men in the field
have to make the best of. all this equipment is going to be new so how long will it take to find and
iron out the problems and how much more money will get wasted on fix's.
and the F35 yes its a wonderful platform (when it works) have all the issues been attended to now
is it really ready to deploy or are we going to have an endless string of issues sort to keep them operational.

i just get a nervous tic when ever i see a politician spouting that is all going to be wonderful .

a reply to: stuthealien

must say i am somewhat last time i looked they were still welding hull sections together

a reply to: ShayneJUK

They're still having minor issues but the program has built a lot of momentum recently.

Russia can put a lot out there, but if most of it doesn't make where it needs to go it doesn't do them much good.

wheres Osbourne found 12billion smackers from? I suppose the 138 will be the usual thing of 1/3rd in the hangar for repairs, 1/3rd for keeping up flight times and training and the final 1/3rd sat on our two carriers which due to government cuts will be manned by 2 monkeys and a sloth as it'll be all we can afford.

Wonder if we can see which members of the commons defense select committee just brought a load of shares in the companies involved in the f-35 project?

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: ShayneJUKWhere has anyone said that the UK is trying to match the US in any way? The aim is to have the most potent Force behind the US fleet, and having F-35s will go a good way towards that.

If I may, the second largest or most powerful fleet in the world is probably the Japanese. The Japanese Maritime Self Defense Forces have a total of 124 ships vs the British Royal Navy's 76. The RN is working on a pair of carriers and has nuclear missile subs (SSBNs) and nuclear attack subs (SSNs). Given the reported problems with the Astutes, that last may not be much of an advantage.

Even so, if there was a Fight Club of Navies, I'd bet on the Japanese so long as nukes are not allowed.

a reply to: anzha

Fleet strength wise, yes. But the comment was about carrier forces, which the UK will rank right up there with the Queen Elizabeth class and F-35s.

Straight up fleet strength the UK ranks up there, but not close to the top. Like most Western navies they went quality over quantity, which is good and bad in its own right.

a reply to: Zaphod58

The Izumo and Kaga are on the cusp of being carriers with a max of 28 aircraft carried (lesser so, the Hyuga and Ise with maxes of 16) and could easily operate the F-35B (and have incorporated features necessary to do so). The Japanese are definitely NOT buying second rate equipment (re: atago and kongo classes minimally, aka Nippono-Burkes).

You have 6 Type 45s vs 8 Atago & Kongos. You have 13 Type 23s vs (Hotel Sierra) 30 assorted other destroyers, 11 frigates and 6 corvettes. Then the HMS Ocean vs the two Osumi.

The Type 23s are going to be replaced with the Global Combat Ship, but the Japanese are planning a procurement of 48 (!) warships over the next decade.

The Japanese have 17 (+5 more in the pipeline) SSKs. The Brits have 6 SSNs, four T class and two A class, with 5 more A class coming.

IDK. I think I still place my chit on the Japanese, Zaph. They are more defense oriented, but the Japanese VLS cell count alone might make up a lot for the Brit Air Power.

IDK. Given the