A Defence Minister has confirmed for the first time that the Royal Air Force is expected to operate a mix of F-35B and F-35A fighter jets, suggesting a future acquisition of the A variant.
In response to a parliamentary question from Conservative MP Andrew Snowden, Minister of State for Defence Maria Eagle stated:
“The Strategic Defence Review does not recommend reductions in fast jets for the RAF, but it confirms the Government’s commitment to GCAP, to upgrade Typhoons and no reductions in number as there is a shift to a new mix of F35Bs and F35As. The Government is committed to upgrading Typhoons and driving exports of Typhoons abroad.”
While the UK has long focused exclusively on the short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) F-35B variant for carrier operations, this marks the clearest indication yet of government intent to incorporate the conventional take-off and landing F-35A into its future fleet.
Why the F-35A?
It was part of a key recommendation in the newly published Strategic Defence Review (SDR). The document states:
“More F-35s will be required over the next decade. This could comprise a mix of F-35A and B models according to military requirements to provide greater value for money.”
This reference to a potential F-35A acquisition has been interpreted by experts and parliamentarians as linked to the UK’s possible future role in NATO’s nuclear sharing mission, an arrangement under which non-nuclear states host US nuclear weapons and are capable of delivering them in wartime. While the UK already possesses its own independent nuclear deterrent via the submarine-based Trident system, participation in NATO’s air-delivered nuclear mission would mark a significant evolution in its commitment to Alliance nuclear burden-sharing.
During a Commons exchange, Conservative MP Ben Obese-Jecty raised the issue directly with the Defence Secretary, citing changes in US procurement plans and raising questions about variant costs and capabilities.
“With reference to recommendation 46, the US’s 2025 marine aviation plan… outlined that the US Marine Corps—by far the biggest user of the F-35B—has changed its programme of record, reducing orders for F-35Bs by 73 aircraft in favour of the F-35C. The upshot is that the unit price of each B aircraft is about to increase by tens of millions… What assessment has been made of the current queue for the F-35A… and what assessment has been made of converting our remaining B orders to F-35C and modifying our carriers to CATOBAR?”
Responding, Defence Secretary John Healey MP did not directly address the question of variant conversion but confirmed that discussions were underway regarding NATO’s nuclear mission:
“As the hon. Gentleman says, the SDR recommends commencing discussions with the US and NATO on enhancing the UK’s participation in NATO’s nuclear mission. We have accepted that recommendation, as we have the other 61 recommendations in the review. I will not comment in public on those discussions, but this is what putting NATO first looks like.”
Germany offers a useful precedent. In 2020, Berlin announced it would procure 30 Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornets to replace its Tornado fleet in the nuclear role, although at the time the Super Hornet was not yet certified to carry the B61 gravity bomb used in NATO’s nuclear arsenal.
By 2022, amid heightened security concerns following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Germany reversed course and chose to buy 35 F-35A aircraft instead, specifically for the NATO nuclear sharing role.
The concern is that with two F35 variant forces, neither of which has the critical mass to do anything much in particular.
I earnestly hope that this is not in place of the next buy of F35Bs otherwise that hamstrings the CSG concept.
Mind you have would ease Reeve’s dealing with China which appear to be a blindingly naive as her financial and monetary policies.
Every country that operates the F35B also operates the F35A excluding Singapore and all bar one of them operates a smaller fleet than us.
They are quite a lot of disingenuous statements issued sighting the commonality of the two aircraft as only 20%. The figure itself is a lie but it’s more of a manufacturing statement rather than anything to do with operations.
All F35 have a common maintenance chain so it doesn’t matter which model we have for parts. Their sensor are identical, computers are identical, flight controls are nearly identical.
The F35B and A have far more commonality that an Airbus A320 and A330 that allow common rating in civilian service.
F35A has significantly cheaper operating and acquisition cost with much more weapon options.
Even at 48 aircraft the F35B fleet is perfectly sustainable. Singapore operates just 6 and Italy 15 on a fraction of our budget.
If we need to fight Russia without the USA which looks more likely we can easily defeat them with AirPower but as Ukraine has shown we need strong SEAD/DEAD capability. The F35 is the best aircraft for the mission by far and the F35A is the quickest and best option for that.
Once we replace the USAF in SEAD we no longer need US forces in Europe for much else.
I agree that we can probably deal with Russia as it is now close to solo if we had more munitions stockpiles.
However, whether you have A/B or C makes little difference if you don’t have the weapons integrations or stockpiles.
There is a realistic degree of concern about how to deploy some of the superb weapons that we have for Typhoon. We have stockpiles and indigenous supply chains for most of those.
I am not of the ilk to say that CSG should never have the super hard hitting required and that is what this reductionist thinking leads to.
OK part of the issue is RAF gold plated thinking about the tail. The reality is that frames and spares are the priority. In a time of crisis it is amazing how fast you can train or retrain people!
Respectfully Singapore operating 6 No F35B is comedy value as in a good day 2-3 will be deployable.
Jim – Singapore currently has 4 F35B but towards the end of last year confirmed an order for an additional 8 Bs. On top of this is also a confirmed order for 12 F35As which will be delivered towards 2030 bring the total RSAF F35 fleet to 20. BTW, Singapore defence spending remains constant at between 3.3 – 4% of GDP.
Hi Jim we don’t have 48 F35B, once the 1st Tranche is complete we will have 43 operationally useable Aircraft out of 48 purchased (3 test wired, 1 non operational test and 1 which went for a dip). As it states in the SDR (page 115), we will need to order another Tranche of F35 in the next decade and it may be a mixed buy. As I’ve said before if it were me it would be @20 more F35B (63 total) and 36+ F35A and I’d assign all the B’s to the FAA. That way we have enough for a full CAG, maintenance and a small OCU for the Navy and a reasonable number for RAF Strike.
Personally I’d like us to purchase an extra 30 odd Typhoons as we need to increase mass and let’s face it when has any recent U.K. project ever been on time.
Sounds reasonable, I’m very much for another buy of typhoon if the money is available as well.
Hi Jim, where you say “Even at 48 aircraft the F35B fleet is perfectly sustainable ….”, I agree with you but we need the ability to ‘surge’ which, to me, means if it comes to it, be capable of putting both Carriers to sea during heightened tensions with a truly capable strike wing on both. I appreciate you’re not necessarily saying stop at 48 Bs but, as ABCRodney says, we do need more. I get your point about more Typhoons, this is a more sovereign-like capability (marginally), I appreciate the dilemma now between US made and UK made. Personally, I’d like us to acquire 2 sqns of F35As, with a training/test & Evaluation flight, so say 30 As but then still meet the 72-odd Bs that were being talked about. This gives the RAF a 5th gen nuke delivery capability with the extra range and payload the A gives us but also gives us the ability to put 24 Bs on each carrier, if needed. As we augment more UAV capabilities onto the carriers there should, hopefully, be less of a need to surge to, say 36 Bs per carrier, so having 72 Bs should be a lot more manageable. Separate note, with the F35A we would need to start talking about retrofitting the AirTanker fleet with booms, would we not?
Reeve’s withdrawal of the pensioner winter fuel allowance was blindingly naive. But the general principle of only borrowing for capital projects, not for current expenditure is sound I think. Consumer lead growth had ceased to work; the economy needs supply side reforms which will take a while to work. That said, this week could be the week Starmer lost the next election. Cosseting Milliband’s obsession with dubious net zero in preference to policing and council services is a blunder.
It was incredibly stupid for them to withdraw the WFA like that and it’s no surprise that they’ve had to backtrack. Their solution looks to be overly complicated though. They should just add it to the basic state pension and then use the tax system to ‘means test’ it (ideally abolishing NI and increasing income tax accordingly).
A quick look at the current state of UK politico-demography tells you all you need to know: there are loads of pensioners and they are highly motivated to vote so their wishes can’t be ignored. They have been vital in keeping the Conservatives in power in recent years and in return the Conservatives made sure they didn’t lose out during the years of stagnant growth, making sure to protect NHS spending and increase the state pension faster than the growth of workers’ wages.
I also agree on the need to increase investment. We’ve had one of the lowest capital investment rates of any large economy for multiple decades now and we now have a huge investment debt to pay back – our basic public infrastructure is increasingly decrepit and urgently needs replacing.
We’ve enjoyed a massive investment holiday (and consequently paid much lower taxes) since the 1980s but we can’t carry on freeloading on past generations’ investments.
Agree, should have been more cuts to children’s benefits, lazy little buggers anyway, most of them could easily get a job and stop scrounging off the state none of them even vote so no point in giving them any money.
Pensioners always vote and they always needs more money and they normally vote for anyone offering them more money while also clearly looking out for the country’s best interests 🤔
😂
Absolutely, you can’t have rights without responsibilities, which rules out both children and pensioners 😂
No representation without taxation 😀
Jim,
May have to expropriate that aphorism for utilization on this side of the Pond! Appropos description of many Federal legislative/fiscal issues. 👍👍😁
😂
Tiny Tim certainly does not require specialist medical care or a nutritious diet, at least according to the descendents of Ebeneezer Scrooge. 😁. (Really don’t have a dog in this fight.)
Even with the F35B’s we never delivered critical mass. I think in the long run this has to be seen as a win, HMG committing to more nuclear weapons needing a delivery vehicle only means more F35s.
Possible unstated ulterior motive for USAF support for RAF acquisition of F-35A: USAF desires at least one ENATO AF capable of shacking targets w/ B61-12 and/or B61-13. Contrary to popular wisdom, CEPs do indeed count. RAF, though significantly reduced in structure, has nevertheless maintained professional standards.
Urgh!! Such a weird and wasteful use of previous resources when there’s a massive list of more pressing issues.
Worst case scenario we’re now going to end up with 2 small F35 A/B fleets with limited commonality…..sacrificing restricting the scope of carrier strike and GCAP in the process.
Nice to have, but not where I’d be funnelling money at the expense of a larger F35B fleet, or dozens of other priorities.
N
The fear over undermining GCAP is very strange, considering that the other two partner nations in GCAP operate both the A and B F-35s in larger fleets than the RAF. Furthermore, GCAP is not intended to replace the F-35, but to complement it. GCAP is both confirmed and funded – this F-35A purchase, especially if it replaces a future B purchase, will not affect GCAP.
Budgets are under enormous stress. Not saying GCAP will be cancelled, but funding delayed, pace slowed? Don’t be so sure.
Slowing the pace would likely loose Japan. If you want my guess, the budget issue is fiscally solved by simply replacing the remaining 24 F-35Bs with A models. I assume, what with the new hybrid carrier idea, that that is the plan.
Yeah my thought too. Probably can get 36 A’s for the price of 24 B’s. And then stick some drones on the carriers to make up the numbers. Could someone more knowledgeable than me tell me if 24 F35Bs and a bunch of drones is actually has good capabilities or is just a penny pinching exercise in disguise?
*lose
Please bring back the edit function 🙏
Think the F-35C option has been shot, unless we convert 1 CV to CATOBAR and buy 48 x F-35c as to run 1 STOL Carrier and/or 1 CATOBAR for the Navy. i think 48 of each B & C would be enough (just) the keep 2 CV Air wings operational (or just buy 48 more B’s). Then buy 48-60 x F-35A for RAF along with booms for Voyagers would give RAF long range low obs strike.
Sorry but the plan was never to operate both at the same time and always best to keept the operation of them the same. One FULL Carrier wing with at least 36 fighters and supporting assets is a must with the FAA taking full control of the assests.
Focus here should be a domestic aircraft. The F35A if it ever comes to pass should be a stop gap measure purely for the purpose described.
CATOBAR should never be part of our carriers kit. Waste of space. The Americans have moved on.
Mechanism for launching drones – maybe. Whatever suits our requirements.
” The Americans have moved on.” lol no they haven’t. they’re currently building 3 and have more on order:
“The U.S. Navy is currently building three Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carriers: USS John F. Kennedy (CVN-79), USS Enterprise (CVN-80), and USS Doris Miller (CVN-81). A total of six have been ordered, including these three plus USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78), which is already built and in service, and two additional carriers, USS William J. Clinton (CVN-82) and USS George W. Bush (CVN-83). The Navy plans to eventually acquire a total of ten Ford-class carriers to replace the Nimitz-class carriers on a one-for-one basis.”
F35A’s wrong for UK. It’s another example of US cutting out competition – we should be saying that if America wants Europe to use American bombs, America should pay to make Typhoon compatible until such time as Tempest isavailable. Personally still want to see a European solution… won’t happen, but increase number of European controlled weapons, including a short range tactical nuclear missile rather than a free fall bomb!
I had wanted the RAF to get 15x F-35A for 74 sqn, to carry all the weapons, including B-61, that A carries, but are not on B. However, unless the UK gets Israeli style digital autonomy, I am not keen on any more F-35. QE/PoW could do with AAG for STOBAR operations. Does not preclude STOVL. Is a value for money, flexible upgrade.
Great move. The F35-A is much cheaper and a lot more capable. Get enough Bs to run the carrier strike and then the remaining should be the A model.
🤦🏻♂️🤣
Agreed. The already substantial price difference could grow even bigger, as will the potential to piggy back on other allies upgrades / weapons integration.
Refuelling ?
How much is the addition of drogue style refuelling for “A”
Be interested to see how many million that customisation costs per plane.
Germany doesn’t have nuclear weapons so why has it got planes in the nuclear role?
To drop American nuclear bombs.
NATO nuclear sharing.
I think German, Dutch, Belgian and Turkish jets were all certified to drop US nukes. Not sure if all are maintaining this ability as they transition to new fleets, but Germany certainly intends to.
Has the 2nd tranche of 26x F35b that we’ve commited to actually been ordered yet? We originally committed to 138, however at least if we have a total of 74 at the moment, and they are solely for the RN, that is enough for a credible carrier strike capability for one carrier operating at a time.
Would it potentially be enough to field 2 carriers with 18 jets on each one?
Maybe we will get 74 F35B for Carrier strike, then 64 F35A.
No. It hasn’t.
Such a B buy is critical before any As.
Hi M8 What I’d like us to do is develop a U.K bomb that’s compatible with the B as well as the A. Trump is just way too unreliable and we cannot rely on him approving the use of their pre positioned B61’s, all it takes is Putin to tell Trump that he doesn’t care who drops a US bomb it’s still a US bomb and they will retaliate accordingly.
Not sure Tornado style interdiction relying on free fall nuclear bombs is the way to deter the Russian doctrine of their first use as battlefield weapons. Better to threaten an overwhelming conventional missile and air launched response. That said, in the current NATO / Trump political climate this F-35A move was always on the cards.
You forget they are 5th gen, State of the art stealth and I’d say they have given back exactly this sort of capability the UK walked away from decades ago.
If just a couple got through, that would do the job pretty convincingly, meanwhile Russia will have to spend big to counter the threat.
Yeh, on balance a good decision. Putting the B61 issue to one side, F-35A is cheaper, has longer range and a wide selection of conventional weapons. It is the true stealth successor to Tornado. We should top out the F-35B buy at 72 at most. Replacing the tranche 1 Typhoons with F-35A would be a step increase in capability.
Bloody RAF takes every opportunity to diminish carriers.
Maybe we will get 74 F35B for Carrier strike, then 64 F35A.
Silly decision in my opinion.
The UK government should be investing in their workforce at home. Without final assembly work coming to Warton soon, an entire workforce and the experience that comes with it will be lost. You can forget Tempest final assembly at the point, as it’ll likely be deemed too expensive to spool up such activities. We’ll end up relying on Italy and Japan to assembly aircraft for the UK.
Utterly stupid decision that guarantees the UK will have fewer jets as operating three types of fast jet being more expensive than two.
It also means we’re going to have to carry nuclear free-fall bombs supplied by Trumpland, or develop our own. The latter cost further guaranteeing further reductions in spend on conventional forces.
It will also make Italy and Japan question the UK’s commitment to GCAP.
Stupidest defence idea since the early scrapping of Invincible class and Harriers.
Both Italy and Japan are also receiving both F35A and F35B as we speak (both have received less than half their orders to date). And Italy recently ordered Tranche 4 Typhoons. Does that make us question their commitment to GCAP?
This is a sensible uplift to the fast jet fleet.
Even singapore is ordering the A and B, 20 total. its a no brainer really. they’re pretty much the same aircraft, the B just has extra equipment. If you already operate the B you don’t really need to add any extra logistics to add the A.
You really don’t understand the differences between the variants, they are not “pretty much the same” aircraft 🤦🏻♂️
Let me point you to a really obvious difference… the F35A uses boom refuelling, the F35B uses drogue and probe. All UK air-to-air is drogue and probe; F35B, Typhoon, A400M, C17, etc.
We don’t have anyway to refuel F35As.
It’s a non issue as the RAF outsources refueling anyway, I could see the ability being brought into service once the contract comes back open for bidders.
It’s not sensible.
It’s a 50% increase in operational costs, as we’d have 3 fast jets fleets instead of 2. All for the benefit of dropping nuke bombs if the US gives us permission.
100% spot on. More aircraft can only be a good thing? Plus if HMG want the RAF to have the nuclear strike ability back, it’s logical to think that in the long term plans for a new UK design could take its role one the F35 has reached the end of its life.
The fear over undermining GCAP is very strange, considering that the other two partner nations in GCAP operate both the A and B F-35s in larger fleets than the RAF. Furthermore, GCAP is not intended to replace the F-35, but to complement it. GCAP is both confirmed and funded – this F-35A purchase, especially if it replaces a future B purchase, will not affect GCAP.
What does the fact that Japan and Italy both field F35A’s & F35B’s have to do with our commitment to GCAP?
You are conflating two separate entities.
They have already decided how they wished to split & fund their aircraft prior to GCAP – and so had we , and ours didn’t include funding for F35A’s.
Therefore any concern within the UK is based solely on the additional purchase and support of an aircraft we previously had no intention whatsoever of buying.
This , against a backdrop of increased tensions within UK (and wider EU) – US relations ,both financially and militarily, where the US have made it plain they have no wish to support western European interests, added to LM’s (at best) general malaise in non US weapons integration on the F35B , should ring alarm bells in those wishing to pursue the GCAP program. and/or those who wish to maximise the Carrier group capability.
America has past form in undermining sovereign projects , and will always , repeat always, seek to push for American influence whenever it can.
I have very little doubt whatsoever that if , after all the recent signs from America, we continue go down the route of purchasing F35A’s , it will have a detrimental impact on our commitment to , and delivery of, GCAP.
You’ve misunderstood what I’m saying. There were implications that Japan and Italy would negatively view a British purchase of the F-35A as undermining British commitment to the GCAP. I’m saying that isn’t accurate, primary because both other nations already run that force structure.
We don’t need F35A or long range missiles bolted onto QE carriers . This is a bad joke.
Would be better to put nuclear cruise missiles on typhoon and eventually migrate it over to tempest
Oh dear. Interesting to see how a sovereign capability (UK designed and sourced) will ever be integrated. Otherwise it is an American weapon, hard to see those being under UK control. F35A will be a costly mistake.
The recommendation in the SDR was to discuss with USA the expansion of nuclear options. This statement just confirms that. Let’s hope the discussions don’t lead to our spending scarce funds on an aircraft and weapon we absolutely don’t need. Responding to the perceived weakening of the US nuclear umbrella by fielding a weapon over which they will have dual key control is illogical and frankly stupid.
Arming our own aircraft with our own weapon. We are more than capable of making them (we had plenty in the past) Stick it on the front end of a long range missile and we have full control and also safer for the pilot who may get a chance to return. Dropping the nuc the old fashioned way means in general the asset and pilot delivering it will be on a one way trip……. very costly choice………
This is one of the worst recommendations within the SDR.
It’s not just that the capability itself relatively specialist (tactical nuclear weapons) or that the solution (F35As) is a relatively expensive way of delivering it, but it is also that it means us buying yet more US equipment, over which we have very little control (e.g. Meteor integration now put back to the 2030s).
We must be able to introduce a sovereign tactical nuclear weapon capability in a much cheaper and smarter way than this.
Dust off the blueprints for WE.177 , fit a Paveway glide kit and fit to Typhoon?
Spot on !
Anyone who has taken the trouble to actually read the 2025 SDR will already know that its main emphasis was to recommit our main defence effort towards NATO missions and away from the expeditionary warfare focus of the recent past. One would hope that with the obvious renewed threat that Putin’s Russia now poses, coupled with Trump’s doubtful commitment to NATO, the immediate defence of our nation and continent is a priority that nobody seriously questions. Therefore, ordering the relatively less expensive,and in some regards significantly more capable, F-35A for employment exclusively by the RAF on NATO’s Northern flank would appear to this observer of the defence scene to be a overdue and eminently sensible development. A mixed F-35 fleet has its attractions that the framers of the SDR have clearly recognised.
It seems to me that the CVF project, which the RN sacrificed so very much to realise, can only have a marginal relevance in this NATO v Russia scenario – they would surely not survive long off the Norwegian coast and are arguably the wrong type of ships for the priority ASW tasking the RN surely must now has to address again. The F-35B we already have will be more than sufficient to keep one QEC carrier in business for the foreseeable future and I say we must now prioritise the RAFs urgent need for F-35A procurement.
Laughable that we think using tactical nukes won’t escalate to full out nuclear war. This is a niche specialty we don’t have to afford we have ballistic subs it’s enough.
how are the F35A going to be refuelled mid air? AFAIK Voyager has no boom required for F35A.
These nuke missions won’t be going far, because i doubt other countries would want to assist in such a mission, unless it’s a full on NATO action, but then plenty of other countries would already be sending F35A with Nukes (Bel, NL, Ger and Italy)
Unless the UK develops its own cruise missile for its own sovereign plane, I don’t really see a point to this F35A + B61 gravity bomb for the UK. It’s expensive, not sovereign and there are more usefull things that are needed ie getting more F35B for the carriers or a soverign nuke on Tempest/Typhoon.
my 2 cents
Plenty of our NATO allies can provide this capability if needed, including the USAF 100th Air Refueling Wing based at RAF Mildenhall with their KC135 Stratotankers, which support the F35As at RAF Lakenheath amongst other duties.
ofc allies already provide air refuelling, but this is totally different since it’s a nuclear strike mission.
you think Germany would allow its tankers to refuel UK aircraft on a UK mission to nuke someone? for years, they were reluctant to send Taurus to Ukraine well after UK and France had been sending Scalp / Storm Shadow, it took an election and Trump to change their minds.
so please excuse my scepticism.
A number of Voyagers could be modified with a boom. Anything is possible when the funds are suddenly available. Plus we have the USAF tanker fleet at Mildenhall for Lakenheath F35As. I’m sure an agreement could be made between the two Force’s. The US Navy make heavy use of Voyagers for F18s in the Middle East.
absolutely, yet i didnt see it mentionned in the SDR. just goes to show how shorsighted some decisions are taken without thinking it through properly
The German Govt have apparently expressed a preference for their F35A order to have Refuelling Probes fitted,to which LM are looking into.If this is delivered then it’s an easy win for a possible RAF order.If this is not possible then other Assets can be made available as others have said.
Lockheed Martin delay Meteor integration onto F35B again and we reward them with a purchase of F35As, potentially undermining Tempest in the process ? Genius.
yep – Laughable isn’t it.
The fear over undermining GCAP is very strange, considering that the other two partner nations in GCAP operate both the A and B F-35s in larger fleets than the RAF. Furthermore, GCAP is not intended to replace the F-35, but to complement it. GCAP is both confirmed and funded – this F-35A purchase, especially if it replaces a future B purchase, will not affect GCAP.
The other participants don’t have HMT to contend with…..
Why invest in a weapon system that is only ever useable for last resort retaliation? Without sufficient conventional forces we are pushing ourselves to actually using nuclearmas part of operations. Nuclear warheads can relatively easily be converted into free fall or glide bombs. It is a straightforward engineering problem. If they can be flown using stealth then to a certain extent they do not need to be precisely targetted either. A much better use of some of the money could be used to improve conventional forces and recreate a credible resilience, resupply capability and accompanying home defence.
The thoughts behind using something like the B61, is to make the other side think rather than as the route to escalation. Traditionally during the Cold War RAF aircraft stationed in Germany were tasked with either close air support (Harrier and Jaguar) or interdiction (Jaguar and Tornado). All three of these aircraft could have carried the WE177. But the doctrine then was to prevent the “Soviet” armoured juggernaut” ploughing through Germany. Today the rational over a tiered nuclear response is something the UK cannot do, as we retired our WE177 weapons in 1998. We can only respond to an act of nuclear aggression through the use of Trident. Which if used against Russia would definitely give the wrong signal. As they won’t wait to see if the missile is only carrying the one MIRV instead of the standard 8+, before they retaliate.
France I feel has the right tiered nuclear doctrine. Where they will use the ASMP against a target to bring the parties to the negotiating table, then if this doesn’t work they will escalate using their SSBNs. It also means that if a rogue state gets hold of a nuclear weapon and uses it against them. They can respond proportionally.
I totally agree that any form of nuclear weapon should not come at the expense of our conventional armed forces.
The assumption ‘makes them think’ is predicated on them actually doing so, or not taking the suicide option like some nationalities and religions seem to be willing to do! As you rightly say we have no scaleable or proportional capability. We need to boost our conventional capacity and then and only then can we start bargaining to get rid of all nuclear weapons (if feasible). And the only real state to worry about is Russia who could turn half the world into a nuclear wasteland if they saw fit. Bearing in mind that Putin has already threatened or hinted at this – “a world without Russia is not worth being part of or living in”. Rumours of purchasing F35A to drop dumb or guided bombs is perhaps a start of thinking rationally about defence.
I agree that a preferred deterrence solution would be to threaten an overwhelming conventional response. Something like a fleet of stealth B2 Spirit bombers might be enough; but Europe does not possess such a capability. The key thing, as the SDR points out, is that battlefield use of low yield nuclear weapons “ to terminate conflict on advantageous terms” in the belief that the West would negotiate rather than escalate, is Russian doctrine. So we have to have a credible like for like deterrent.
George, please could you advise on a matter of protocol. I have been posting here as Nick C for several years, although only intermittently depending on the subject. I now find another Nick C, with some interesting points, also posting on the site. Should you arrange for one or both of us to change our designation, or do we both have to live with a schizophrenic existence, which is fine until one of us disagrees with the other!
Advice please.
Hi Nick C! I think a result of the designation creation. I hope we weren’t taking each other in vain. I try to explain different points of view and new meanings and interpretations, especially if they are factually misleading.
Here’s a thought. If the first Nick C was registered before it’s not a lot to ask to simply to change your i.d. to something like Nick.C
Problem solved.
Helpful suggestion and lots of names we could use, but we can’t access any settings!
As suggested by Paul P, how about you become Nick.C? Then we can disagree if needed without becoming too schizophrenic!
We should not join the US nuke sharing but we should build our own bombs. This would increase the credibility of our nuclear deterrent and underline our independence.
The warheads are already ‘bomb-shaped’ for re-entry, it wouldn’t take much to reshape a casing and fins, assuming they would fit in a new aircraft of course.
I agree with what you say about the limited relevance of the carriers to UK self defence. But why does the RAF need F35A.? So far it has no UK air to air weapons integrated so would have to buy US missiles. Far better to order additional Typhoons capable of using AMRAAM, Meteor and Brimstone straight away. Eagle Nintendo at such a buy before the SDR was published but that seems to have disappeared.
We have already bought AMRAAM-D for the current F-35Bs.
Nintendo ? Wtf? Intended.
As previously stated, whilst the F35 could not be described as an Anglo American project, we remain the only tier one partner and produce approximately one sixth of each unit, so a further purchase would provide ongoing work for the UK component. Also the proposal to convert one carrier to Catobar is a bad idea. From memory the idea was mooted some years ago and the extra over cost was heavy to say the least. If done now it will be even more expensive and involve a lengthy period of downtime on one of the QEs.
I remain unconvinced by an F-35A buy, especially as a truck for free-fall tactical nukes. It’s not a B-2 or B-21; the back end (and probably some of the side-on profiles) aren’t that far off a 4.5Gen jet, so likely to get picked up on GBAD radar. And you can’t maintain a front-on aspect to an enemy’s AAD bubble when you’re trying to penetrate into it to hit a target with a tactical nuclear gravity bomb. It’s a poor justification, and so far no-one’s been able to convince me otherwise. A Typhoon with a nuclear-tipped Storm Shadow would have better chances of success…
Aside from that, though, there’s delivery: We are not currently in the production queue for F-35A. We’d be at the back of the line, or paying to jump ahead. So when would we be getting IOC on that fleet? Assuming an understrength squadron of 8-10, I doubt it’ll be much before 2035. At which point, how long are we before we start transitioning to Tempest (in theory, at least)?
We should probably also ask what we’re getting out of F-35 in 2035 too: We’ll barely have had Spear 3 and Meteor integrated, JSM maybe if we’re lucky and we sign onto it, and no FC/ASW or Brimstone. They’ll probably (hopefully) have finally started the re-engine process- so we’ll be partway through sending our F-35B back for new engines to finally unlock the full-fat Block IV. If we’re lucky, our 10 F-35A will come with the new engines.
All of this, so we can have the honour of dropping US dumb nukes on eastern Europe if all hell breaks loose? Poor justification. I can, genuinely see the benefits of F-35. But the longer this Block IV process keeps stretching, and the more LockMart drag their heels on our sovereign weapons integration, the less sense it makes and less benefit it brings.
A better justification, and one I’d accept, is an Israel-style right to independently integrate our own weapons and suchlike in exchange for a buy of F-35A to replace the oldest Typhoons. That would be worth it.
Will the MoD remember that Voyager in its current guise cannot refuel F35A?
Or are they more demented than we thought and are happy to ignore that minor detail?
Need those 27 extra B first.
My prediction is they order far less, sadly.
On nukes, why the hell are we planning to go free fall! A stand off capability is needed.
Correct point. Would it not have crossed the minds of those looking at this problem that we could buy some of the French SAMP. We could put our own warheads on, and since it has already been integrated onto a Rafale surely it shouldn’t be beyond the wit of the engineers to integrate onto Typhoon. I seem to recall that Bae floated the idea of a two seat typhoon with conformal fuel tanks for greater range a few years back, although I am not sure if a demonstrator ever flew.
Tactical nukes have questionable benefits if they are taken from the NATO pool (which really means borrowing US weapons). They will never be used without US authorization. The UK needs a sovereign nuclear capability again.
Get the Fleet Air Arm built up to take 70 plus F35Bs. The RAF then get the F35A, but have a centralised maintenance facility. Would probably help recruitment in the RAF,as people don’t join the RAF to serve on an Aircraft Carrier.
Yeh, I reckon you could move the senior ratings dining room and put a well deck in QE and POW; cancel MRSS and save a lot of money 😂
Rather than adopting the nuclear sharing model – is there any scope to leverage the special relationship to potentially adopt a similar set up that we have with trident? Where US supplies the delivery vehicle but we have independent control?
Why are we still buying US kit, given the actions of the clown in the White House.