F35 - Money well spent.

Our exchange posts are designed to expand mutual operational understanding for planning and a variety of other factors; it’s not just about comparable types.

For instance, RAF GR4s and Typhoons have previously flown operationally in packages which also included - or were coordinated with - USAF Low Observable assets such as F-117s, B-2s and F-22s. Therefore it’s beneficial to those communities if they have aircrew with good understanding of the limitations and capabilities of types they’re likely to work with.

More recently, the relevance of our F-22 and B-2 exchanges has increased as we’ve started to grow our own 5th Gen expertise in preparation for the introduction of F-35. Therefore, several RAF F-35B pilots have ended up on the type after having previously flown F-22 or B-2s as well as GR4s and/or Typhoons.



A great many are liaison officers which are entirely different to exchange officers (EO).

Even if working in a US environment such as an HQ or the Pentagon, the former are treated as ‘Brits’, work for and report directly to the UK, and so do not have access to US ‘No Foreign National’ (NOFORN) material. In contrast, exchange officers are fully embedded in their host service and have access to NOFORN data which requires them to sign non-disclosure agreements for when they leave; likewise, foreign EOs in the UK sometimes have access to UKEO material and also sign similar documents.

In addition to exchange and liaison officers, there are also a large number of British personnel simply based the US. For instance, 39 Sqn flies Reapers at Creech AFB, 17 Sqn fly F-35s at Edwards and we have other personnel at Beaufort and Jax flying F-35 and P-8s respectively.

So exchanges actually form a minor part of the overall RAF footprint in the US.

Regards,
MM
The Beaufort Brit contingent must be subject to a radical drawdown now that 207(R) Sqn are operating out of Marham.

Are there any plans for 17(R) Sqn to ever come back to the UK, even in the distant future?.
 
The Beaufort Brit contingent must be subject to a radical drawdown now that 207(R) Sqn are operating out of Marham.

Are there any plans for 17(R) Sqn to ever come back to the UK, even in the distant future?.
Yep, the UK F-35 presence will draw down rapidly at Beaufort in the next 12 months; the P-8 guys at Jax will do likewise in due course.

I think the jury’s still out on 17 Sqn.

Regards,
MM
 
Yep, the UK F-35 presence will draw down rapidly at Beaufort in the next 12 months; the P-8 guys at Jax will do likewise in due course.

I think the jury’s still out on 17 Sqn.

Regards,
MM
First P-8A of 120 Sqn to Kinloss next February, or thereabouts, or so I've heard. Will we call our P-8s P-8A or a different suffix, or the more traditional Poseidon MRA1 be used?.
 
First P-8A of 120 Sqn to Kinloss next February, or thereabouts, or so I've heard. Will we call our P-8s P-8A or a different suffix, or the more traditional Poseidon MRA1 be used?.
Officially, it’s the Poseidon MRA1. However, most people will probably still just call it P-8!

Regards,
MM
 
First P-8A of 120 Sqn to Kinloss next February, or thereabouts, or so I've heard. Will we call our P-8s P-8A or a different suffix, or the more traditional Poseidon MRA1 be used?.

From the RAF Twitter feed

“The UK’s new maritime patrol aircraft will be formally known in RAF service as the Poseidon MRA Mk.1. The MRA reflects the types of missions it will undertake – maritime, reconnaissance, attack. Nine Poseidons currently on order will be stationed at
@raflossiemouth
from 2020.”
 
Software glitches are pretty normal with modern, new types, particularly as everyone gains experience on type. However, if you’ve watched the programme, you’ll also have noted some of the superlatives used by the pilots to describe the F-35’s capabilities.

Regards,
MM
Kind of makes my point from Post #1 really, mags falling of rifles = failure to fly.
I sincerely hope they won't be playing Reaction Force/Flight, I hesitate to use the word Quick.
 
Kind of makes my point from Post #1 really, mags falling of rifles = failure to fly.
I sincerely hope they won't be playing Reaction Force/Flight, I hesitate to use the word Quick.
Hardly.

The one, very brief piece of footage you refer to involved a single incident involving a pilot on his very first flight on an aircraft which remains immature in some regards, and which I strongly suspect in this case was using an old, non-operational software load.

Once again, I also note you choose to ignore the very positive comments of the same pilot and several others elsewhere in the series.

Regards,
MM
 
Last edited:

Yokel

LE
As I wrote, it just a thought in theory, if they could deliver the F35s like the Hornet.
No - they have air to air refuelling for that! Better to use the ship to reinforce helicopters!

Somewhere - recently - on ARRSE, there was a video clip of the Russians doing that with one of their land based aircraft, tho' how it got on their "carrier" I do not know.
The Kuznetsov has an angled deck and arresting wires for assisted recoveries. However, STOBAR (short take off but assisted recovery) is a very inefficient use of deck space. It does not provide the same increase in payload and range as a catapult take off, and does not provide the easier landing and ability to recover in worse sea states that a vertical landing does.

When the USSR decided to build a class of four carriers in the eighties, they considered that developing a steam catapult would take too long. I guess they could not steal and copy one, like they did with a lot of NATO technology.

Hardly.

The one, very brief footage you refer to involved a single incident involving a pilot on his very first flight on an aircraft which remains immature in some regards, and which I strongly suspect in this case was using an old, non-operational software load.

Once again, I also note you choose to ignore the very positive comments of the same pilot and several others elsewhere in the series.

Regards,
MM
Did you expect him to say anything positive about the F-35?
 
Last edited:
No - they have air to air refuelling for that! Better to use to ship to reinforce helicopters!
I realise that they have air to air,. I honestly wondered would be possible to launch a non STOL F35 from a QE class carrier. Nothing tactical, just speculating if it would have been possible, that's all.
 
It does but only at the expense of several helicopter spots and (so I’ve been told by more than one USMC AV-8B pilot over the years) helicopter aviators tend to dominate thinking.

So I wouldn't expect to see ramps appearing on the LHAs any time soon.

Regards,
MM
 
Last edited:
Appearances can be deceptive; the F-15C remains a useful aeroplane.

Regards,
MM
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top