Senior authors of the Strategic Defence Review have downplayed the idea of Britain acquiring air-launched tactical nuclear weapons, despite growing speculation that the UK is considering purchasing F-35A aircraft to enable such a capability.
The SDR makes only a brief mention of the aircraft variant and the concept itself.
Lord Robertson, former Defence Secretary and lead reviewer for the SDR, confirmed during an evidence session with the Defence Committee that the issue had been considered but ultimately not included as a specific in the final report.
âYes, we considered it. The fact that itâs not there indicates that we werenât terribly enthusiastic about it,â he said. âWhen I was Defence Secretary the last time round, I got rid of the free-fall bombs.â
Pressed on whether the concept had been ruled out entirely, Robertson added: âWe said it should be the subject of further discussion. We didnât rule it out.â
While the current deterrent remains submarine-based, with the UK operating a fleet of nuclear-armed Vanguard-class submarines and planning for the Dreadnought-class replacement, the review acknowledged a capability gap between full-scale strategic nuclear retaliation and conventional deterrence. Robertson noted that âlong-range heavy strike weaponsâ may help fill that gap, without necessarily resorting to air-launched nuclear systems.
Committee Chair Tan Dhesi referred to âreporting by the Sunday Timesâ indicating that the UK may already be exploring options to buy aircraft capable of delivering tactical nuclear weapons. Robertson responded cautiously: âThere are other reasons for buying the A version of the F-35 beyond that of carrying nuclear weapons.â
Dr Fiona Hill, another of the reviewâs authors, offered a transatlantic perspective. âJust to be frank, this is actually, again, one of the reasons that we didnât recommend it,â she said, noting uncertainty within the United States about its own nuclear posture. âThereâs a lot of debate within the US Congress⌠and the United States itself is revisiting its posture both at home and abroad.â
She stressed that the review focused on Britainâs unique role as an independent nuclear power rather than duplicating NATOâs existing nuclear sharing arrangements. âThere are other allies that already have the dual capable aircraft and the tactical nuclear weapons as part of their arsenal⌠The United Kingdom, obviously like France, has a unique position.â
The comments suggest the SDR teamâs scepticism about introducing a new dimension to the UKâs nuclear deterrentâone that could require infrastructure, training, and diplomatic coordination far beyond the current posture.
As for whether the Ministry of Defence is actively pursuing the option, Robertson told the committee: âWe made the proposal that they should discuss it with NATO⌠Weâre not sure whether SACEUR thinks itâs a good idea, but we simply make the suggestion that it should be discussed.â
If the UK does move forward with tactical air-launched weapons, it would represent the most significant change in its nuclear posture since 1998, when Robertson himself removed free-fall bombs from service. For now, however, the signal from the review team is one of caution, not commitment.
Thank f@ck itâs not happening.
Obviously something they needed to be seen to be considering (pressure from đŽ man?) but know itâs a completely ridiculous idea.
Agree, something outdated like B61 and even more reliant on Donaldâs whims would be a massive waste of money.
I’ve oft wind how it is that the Americans can still use 59 odd year old B52 bombers to deliver the nuclear systems. yet we the 8.k have a fixation with my only a submarine can deliver ours the UK dropped the ball when the Vulcan was retired it showed itself to be an awesome platform to bomb port Stanley during the Falklands war ofi1982. British shipbuilding is on overloaded industry building the Dreadnaughts is far more expensive platform than the design and production of a new Vulcan.ship orders it’s always been a issue with me why an air launched trident type system doesn’t exist surely the technology is not beyond us.
It took a massive amount of resources to get one Vulcan to drop one bomb in a runway and massive risk to the crews involved.
A great PR stunt for sure of very limited military utility.
One SSN could achieve massively more today.
Spot on. I do wonder as an alternative whether the vertical launch tubes of AUKUS with long range cruise missiles might be an option, otherwise the new long range missile concepts eventually from whatever launch platform but F-35As just to drop free fall bombs or similar seems like a no no on so limiting on many grounds, strategic, political and technical. Tempest with stand off missiles might well be worth debating eventually if an aerial option is desired but all these options are a ways off at best.
Absolutely, SLCM-N is already slated for 2034 IOC onboard Virginia class SSNs. Presumably, SSN(A) will incorporate VPM. Beyond inter-government treaty modifications, only probable issue is acquisition cost. Would be prudent for the assigned MoD/RN procurement officer to bring an American Express Centurion (Black or Platinum) Card. đđ However, reasonable bang for buck (đ) or value for money.
If F-35A acquired, there would always be an option to include a future air launched stand-off weapon, but the same will probably be true of GCAP/Tempest. Would wish that RAF acquire B-21s or a strike derivative of SR-72, but probably a fiscal bridge too far, before 3.5% of GDP made available to MoD.
and all that bomb did was make a hole in the runway that could be filled in overnight.
And an unsaid possibility that the next raid would be in Argentina with a nuke… not all operations have a totally military reason.
It was the implication that Buenos Aires, or other mainland targets, would ‘potentially’ be within strike range, that was the real point of the Black Buck missions.
Apparently, it was extremely unsettled for the Junta…
phy ops….
The American premier strategic nuclear deterrent are its Trident armed SSBNs.
But SSBNs are extraordinarily expensive, so they also have land-based missile silos.
Finally they have B52s which have a conventional as well as a nuclear role.
The best solution for strategic nuclear deterrence is SSBNs. Of the 3 delivery systems theyâre the only ones guaranteed to survive preemptive strikes.
Sure we could go for the other two options in addition⌠weâd just need to cancel the pension triple-lock and scrap all child-benefitsâŚ
Bet youâre not so keen now.
BTW in the Vietnam War the USA lost 31 B52 bombers. So in 2025 just how many do you think would actually get to their targets in Russia?âŚ
B-52 losses during Linebacker ops attributable to multiple factors, including rudimentary organic EW capability, and political interference in mission planning. B-52s officially discontinued gravity weapon delivery in 2019. B-52s are currently assigned AGM-86 CM, eventually to be replaced by LRSO weap. B-52 is a stand-off platform, the days of flying to downtown Moscow, ala Dr. Strangelove, are ancient history at this point.
great movie though!
And number of SSBNs lost due to any reason? Zero.
AGM-86 was meant to retired in 2020, though its usefulness became questionable in the 80âs with the introduction of the Mig-31. Which is why itâs replacement, the AGM-129 was developed butâŚ
The B-52 is a launch platform for the nuclear cruise missile, it won’t overfly defended airspace. the b-61 would be delivered by the stealth b-2 or f-35
You honestly think the Russians would stay behind their borders waiting for B52s or the AGM-86s to cross before they intercepted them? The Russians developed the Mig-31 specifically to intercept the AGM-86s, giving it a range that was double that of its predecessor, the Mig-25. As a result the AGM-86s are obsolete and weâre supposed to be retired in 2020âŚ
The V bomber fleet was really aging out. As for the B-52, the Americans literally had to go to RR to buy new engines for them because the old B-52 engines where becoming too expensive and difficult to keep running.
The problem is the separation between Strategic Deterrence and Tactical Nuclear weapons. Until someone comes up with a way of detecting an SSBN whilst on patrol itâs the best possible Nuclear Deterrent, you donât know where it is or how many are out there until they launch. So any enemy knows that if they attack it will inevitably result in massive pain for them.
The problem with Air launched is they are very very vulnerable (just see what happened to some of Russias) especially when on the ground and shot down in the air and having some of them on continuous airborne alert is a very bad idea (they do crash).
FYI The US did actually look at alternatives to Silo and Submarine missiles when developing the Peacemaker missiles. Airdropped ICBMs can work but itâs one massive plane per missile so you need lots of planes and and crews. They also looked at launching from trains or trucks dispersed all over the US the problem with that is they need to be deployed all the time.
The next issue is we just donât have the size nor distance of Russia from the US, the 4 minute warning was in the days when an enemy was limited to silo based or airborne weapons and both were massive.
These days a Hypersonic Ballistic missile going at Mach 10 could be launched from Kaliningrad and be here in 6 minutes, thatâs 6 minutes to identify it, get someone to make a decision, pass the corded down, get the crews into the plane and get airborne !
Personally I think the wheels would fall off that wagon before a decision can be made.
The country is too small for silos so the best option is twofold stick to the SSBN but deploy a tactical weapon so that you can display resolve and hopefully dissuade the enemy from escalating.
There is a reason the French call their nuclear forces the âForce De Dissuasionâ, its resilient, powerful and has the flexibility to deter at a lower level of destruction. Personally Iâd join in with France and design the next generation of Air launched Tactical Missiles both Cruise and Hypersonic, and both increase their fleets to 5 SSBN in a joint deployment schedule. Thatâs a very decent non US deterrent force.
To be fair the B-52’s nuclear capability is to launch a very long range nuclear cruise missile (cant remember the name). The B-61 is carried by tactical aircraft like f-16, f-35 and stealth aircraft like the b-2 and b-21.
You still thinking Cold War tactics. Today a B52 on a nuclear mission would not come within 500 miles of its target. As its purpose is to deliver AGM-129 Advanced Cruise Missiles from a stand-off distance. The B52 can carry 12 missiles, which have a range over 1500 miles. They carry a 5 to 150kt variable yield thermonuclear warhead.
No tactical nukes thatâs fine. No good reasons to have it. Was it non American, no cost, would it prevent full nuclear war no no no.
Agreed. Once any nukes start flying things escalate out of control very quicklyâŚ
Only make sense witha wapon like th French ASMP. Certainly not with free fall bombs.
Now to have ASMP in F-35, how long it will take? maybe by 2050?
You will need to wait for the Super F35 DEF as the bomb Bay is 4.27m long I believe and ASMP is over 5 meters long.
If it’s the F35 we’re talking about, it will probably be a few years after the Americans finally have an export version really to sell to us as their (externally grateful) allies.
I didn’t used to be this cynical about our American cousins but having seen Trump in action and spent some time examining how they rip-off their own citizens (across multiple industries like insurance, health, banking, food etc) you can see that it’s all part of a pattern: American consumers receive barely ok (or even poor) quality services for sky prices.
Our long-term strategy should be to buy as few American products as possible as they both expensive and now appear to come from an unreliable supplier. If nothing else, it will mean our money will go further (and we can be sure more of our equipment will work in a fight against Putin).
And if the US military think highly enough of us, they might even prevail upon their political masters to give us some hefty discounts (not likely though).
Totally agree
I did think that the reference to F35As was being read into a little bit much. There was certainly a degree of putting words in their mouths a little bit, with headlines like “UK exploring idea of F-35A purchase for NATO strike role”. That was complete conjecture, even if many experts did think it was likely.
F35As make sense for a whole host of reasons, not just nuclear strike / sharing. Although we need to get the next tranche of ~27 F35Bs before considering any budget for F35As.
It’s good to see that this is being rolled back somewhat. I would suggest the backlash has something to do with it, though I’m not sure if the government actually read defence sites.
With any luck, the autumn procurement paper will allow for at least 72 F-35B fighters.
I’ll add that I’d much rather Typhoon is procured in addition to the F-35B rather than F-35A. The Lightning is undoubtedly more capable overall, but protecting British manufacturing ability is important. I understand that part of the struggle with regards to constructing the Astute-class submarines was the atrophy of key skills and workers. Ordering more Typhoons could help avoid a similar event in regards to the GCAP.
There is no rolling back. The authors never suggested F35As for nuclear sharing, that was just inferred by some.
The suggested a mixed fleet of A and B variants could possibly be a good force mixture in the future, without specifying any nuclear strike role.
I agree that sovereign defence aerospace manufacturing is an important strategic industry, so an additional interim T4 Typhoon buy would be welcome. But F35s as you say are more capable.
Id say a SCALP or Brimstone launched nuclear low yield nuclear weapon would be a good idea- in low numbers and with our enemies clearly informed their deployment would only be in response to the enemy deploying WMD against our allies, our troops or the UK itself. SO a weapon of retaliation after heavy conventional strike weapons had failed to defeat or deter our enemy’s.
For me the F35A order is likely necessary as I believe the RAF has tested typhoon upgraded to the max vs an F35A and realised the stealth capability and sensor integration surpasses typhoon and therefore an order of F35As are crucial to maintain frontline RAF strength with the tranche 1 typhoons being scrapped.
I think the trident warhead count needs to be increased so each boat going out on deterrent patrol has the maximum carried loadout of MIRVS and the Russians need to be informed this is in direct response to your continuous threatening of the UK and threatening nuclear Armageddon.
Additionally any boats not in long term refit should be kept at readiness to sail at a heightened timeframe meaning we can surge or flush all 3 remaining boats out to sea with the increased tensions with Russia at a moments notice and those 3 boats will each be armed and equipped with the very maximum number of nuclear payload MIRVs both quantity and nuclear yield.
Tactical nuclear weapons are âfighting the last war againâ stuff. I just can see where they would be needed now there are much better ways of stopping mass armour and infantry. Air superiority, long-range guided artillery and missiles, drones, etc.
For giving an option against Russia’s doctrine on using tactical nukes, to escalate to de escalate. We could hardly use Trident in response.
Exactly.
If you want to stop actual mass, there is still nothing that does it quite so definitevly as a tactical nuke I’m afraid. Long Range Guided Artillery requires a lot of barrels and expensive ammunition. Missiles have limited magazine depths. Drones are relatively short range by comparison and still only strike 1 vehicle at a time, meaning you need a lot of boots on the ground to do it. If you truly want to stop a mechanised corps in it’s tracks, a tactical nuke will knock an entire division out in a single blow, as well as any bridges, roads, railways, and supporting infrastructure. All with a single shot. While putting an enormous ! over the entire operation that is impossible to ignore.
Of course, doing that and not risking a strategic counterstrike is a big question, but there was a reason NATO actively planned on turning much of Poland into a Radioactive wasteland.
Unless you are going to argue that British tactical nukes are uniquely better than American ones at stopping mass, NATO already has at its disposal tactical nukes deliverable by the US military or by the militaries of one of several European countries. It would only be extra capability if we didn’t trust that the Americans would respond and wanted to do so ourselves without US agreement. A highly unlikely situation. If the Yanks already have the infrastructure to store tactical nukes at Lakenheath and the F-35s to deliver them, not to mention the pilots, the maintenace engineers, the spares, the training infrastructure, etc, what do we actually gain by paying to duplicate all that?
It’s a very expensive card to hold in your hand, especially given how few conventional ones we are down to. George Robertson is right question the utility.
British Tactical Nukes are uniquely better at stopping Mass than American ones if you are HMG and want to stop mass and TACO says no.
I wouldn’t rely on the US military to use nuclear weapons in a European war. Those days have gone. Since the primary purpose of the nuclear arsenal is deterrence, the uncertainty alone makes it important for the UK to re-acquire tactical nukes.
Not to mention thereâs the option of using the âbarbaricâ neutron bomb instead of a standard thermonuclear weapon. If you want to be really picky.
Good. It was a daft idea from the outset.
The only reason to be buying F-35A in my view is to leverage that for sovereign weapons integration rights like Israel has.
America just cut its F35A purchase rate in half. Itâs only buying 24 a year.
Itâs also likely about to cut E7.
But itâs all good bro, the drones and satellites will handle it all đ¤
That proposal by the Pentagon needs to be approved by Congress, who will likely overturn it and restore the original order (or close to it).
In some ways it would be good news for countries (like us) who want / need to bump the queue to get deliveries faster.
If we got those delivery slots we could have 24 shiny new F35As within 2 years đ
It’s also worth noting that the Pentagon sometimes plays politics, threatening to cancel projects it knows Congress won’t allow it to cancel for economic/political reasons so then the Pentagon can turn around and say “well we tried to slim down but you wouldn’t let us.” While keeping projects they know Congress will accept scrapping behind it’s back.
Interesting. I knew there was a degree of politics before, but that’s a new insight for me.
The one that I always remember was the USAF continually proposing to scrap the A10 Warthog fleet, mainly in order to fund faster acquisition of F35 and maybe even F22 back in the day, but being continually overturned by congress.
I think those very public exchanges between the Pentagon and congress is where the military industrial complex is most visible. Politicians using their influence to keep bases and factories open in their home states against the will of the Pentagon. That’s not to say that the Pentagon have always been on the right side of the argument in hindsight.
Carrickter in fairness my reading is the USAF does genuinely want to get rid of the A10. But there was pretty open speculation that the US Army said it didn’t want any more Abrams knowing that the Government wouldn’t stop production because the factories where job sites, and allowing it to ask for more money in exchange.
Erm they order about 5 years in advance !
I did see that on both F-35A and E-7, and wondered if this new peace between Trump and Elon had anything to do with this move to space-based surveillance/ISTAR. Or maybe I’m just a tinfoil hat wearer…
Yes, it probably would allow us to move up the queue for F-35A- but again that’s only good in my view if we get free reign to integrate Meteor and other weaponry separate to LockMart. But I believe that the US government has rejected similar proposed cuts by the Pentagon before, especially if it negatively affects jobs in the representatives’ State…!
So by my reading, with the costs of F35B they will order less of that and some F35A. I just hope they order enough B for a good second tranche and maybe by ordering A can get more aircraft overall, while giving the RAF its interdiction role back. Is that the idea?
We do not need a NATO nuke free fall role, with US weapons, thank God. I think we do need our own tactical nuclear option of some kind.
Agree with everything, except maybe your last point. I’m not sure that would be a good use of money for a relatively nuanced uplift in deterrence effect. Unless someone with more knowledge can tell me it can be done pretty cheaply.
Let’s get 75 F35Bs for the carriers, transfer them all to the FAA, and let the RAF get some of their own F35As (50-100). Some more T4 Typhoons for mass, and to prevent loss of manufacturing capability at Warton, would be nice too. If only…
The problem we have these days, is that capability is so thin on every front that it’s difficult to prioritise what should be restored. But the above feels like a sensible ambition for fast air.
Your second paragraph is certainly the dream option!
I don’t see the F35Bs going to all FAA. They do not have the budget, infrastructure, or the people. If lots of money came in to replicate Marham, recruit a few thousand extra FAA ground crew, and create another RNAS elsewhere then fine. RNAS Yeovilton is full, and RNAS Culdrose is geared for Merlin. Maybe the flying side of RAF St Mawgan could be reactivated and the civilians booted out!! Though the surfers at Newquay will love the noise.
I, realistically, hope for the second 27 F35N, and no more than 24 F35A, and even then I’ll believe it when I see it with this government. Especially with 12 billion allocated to develop Tempest, never mind actually buying any.
On nukes, I think with Putin’s threats and their doctrine on tactical nuke use, having such an option to respond, instead of all Trident or nothing, would be useful. I agree though, unless it is money no object, I prioritise conventional forces.
I’m a sceptic on F-35A at all to be honest- I don’t think it fits into our timescales, costs, nor industrial posture leading into Tempest/GCAP. If we had loads of cash and pilots, sure, why not? But we don’t.
For me, an F-35B (~72 airframes)/ Typhoon mix is where we should be until Tempest replaces Typhoon. Within that, start replacing older tranches with T4s (and T5s, if they’re a thing)- maintain mass and keep the manufacturing expertise hot. An F-35B force of that size keeps us a relevant partner to the US and opponent to be considered by China; Typhoon T4 will overmatch any Russian aircraft through to 2040, and with the right drone pairing, EW and weapons, their GBAD too. That last bit is something of a punt on my part, but I’ll stick with it for now!
As far as nukes go, agree with you on definitely not the US gravity bombs. The next cheapest would potentially be buying French “MOTS” if they’re willing- if they can launch from Rafale then they can launch from Typhoon. After that, maybe working out how to put the French warhead into Storm Shadow or FC/ASW. But developing our own sovereign tactical nuclear warhead is not going to be a short-term or low-cost option.
I think we need to be cautious about underestimating Russia. Yes, they were a paper tiger in 2022. But they have learned a lot of lessons in the Ukraine war, and have put their industry on a war footing, now producing 1500 tanks per year apparently.
If the war ends, sanctions are lifted, and their economy recovers; they could easily get their hands on large numbers of (probably relatively cheap) Chinese 5th gen aircraft which are being manufactured at pace.
I agree, this isn’t about underestimating Russia. They have certainly learned lessons in Ukraine, but their military is also unable to carry out large scale operations as we’d see them. All the good “middle management” have been killed, with only the corrupt left, pretty much. Lower ranks are treated like cannon fodder and income sources by the officers, and staff-levels know that they don’t have the trained manpower or material resources to do anything other than small infantry tactics on a very wide front- with artillery and drone support.
Honestly, even if Ukraine ended tomorrow, I don’t see Russia as a conventional threat to a NATO country (i.e. something that we’d get actively involved in) for 5 years. But that’s not very long for us to get re-armed and ready for that potential fight, given where we are at the moment.
I’d respectfully disagree about the Chinese aircraft, though. I don’t think they could afford them (their economy is tanked- just buying raw materials and components is many times more expensive than it used to be, and the exchange rate is not in their favour), and I don’t think China would eb willing to sell them. China’s best bet in the Pacific is that no-one really knows how good their jets are, which makes everyone cautious. If they give Putin a bunch to spaff into an assault on the Baltics, then everyone will know pretty quickly.
It is an opinion only, but I think Typhoon (T4 or above) is plenty for any fight west of Suez up to 2040.
Hi Daniele.. Could we manage with 60 F35B and 36 F35A. I know numbers often vary in the individual squadrons at any one time. But say you averaged out 2 squadrons of F35 B’s at the figure of 16 each then include OCU so on.. Would leave a small amount in reserve. Then with the F35A’s have two smaller squadrons of 9 or 10 aircraft again adding a certain number for OCU could that work. To be honest though, I would just prefer the numbers for the F35B to be sorted out, namely around the original figure of 74. Trying to be realistic about what the UK could afford considering all of the other MOD projects and possible ambitions.
It is possible, isn’t it. Wafer thin, the excuse being UCAS will bulk up the QEC with the hybrid air wings.
With an extra 49 aircraft total, you’d take it. IF 60 B is enough for the QEC.
Agree on the realism, too much fantasy fleets when we know HMG have no real interest in defence until they are forced.
yes, agree đ
Fantastic news, what a silly Idea to buy Stealth jets to deliver Nuclear bombs, stealthily, whilst evading radar.
What were they thinking ?
Sadly the B61 is a 3.60 x.4 meter sore thumb.. that if you stick on a F35,makes it an un stealthy fighterâŚ.
Ah but yeah but no but, if you disguised it as a drop tank, they wouldn’t know.
See, Governments spend billions on clever people yet the best ideas are all on here.
“And now, the end is near”.
One of the bits in the SDR that perplexed me was this âThe RAF combat air force provides the core of UK IAMD âeffectâ capability, with Typhoon and F-35 providing the UK and NATO with air defence against air and cruise missile attack. These platforms are also a key part of the IAMD offensive counter-air and deep precision strike capability that underpins conventional deterrence, projecting force at range from the UK to nullify threats before they are launched.â
That suggests to me that they see Typhoon and F35 are a core part of our IADs, and by range from UK means F35A.
⌠as âcoreâ this surely is not the only capability weâll have against air and missile attack?
Key point is, defence against ballistic missile attack is missing.
Cheers DavyB – defence against ballistic missile and drones was strangely missing
Why not keep Vanguard going for another ten years or so in conjunction with Dreadnought and forget tactical nukes? 8 MAD subarines would enhance UKs nuclear status especially with Putin who only truly respects massive nuclear power.
Because all SSBNâs except Vanguard her self are not being refuelled so they will be knackered. Also the USA doesnât have enough spare SLBMâs to give us and no way to make more and we donât even fill up the warhead allocation on the ones we do have.
HI Sutton had a post on a proposed vanguard life extension but it was to carry cruise missiles and drones.
I understand HMS Victorious has not long had a major refit costing ÂŁ1/2 billion. This should keep this submarine going for sometime – hopefully for some years after the introduction of the full Dreadnought complement.
That’s a great Idea, we could get the old Polaris boats re engined too.
“Genious thinking often emerges from unexpected places”.
Why not ha ha? Saturating a target with nukes is the only way to evade iron dome-like missile defences these days…although perhaps not with Russia, whos apparently currently using donkeys to convey military equipment in some instances.
Itâs impractical to extend Vanguard any further than planned. There are many reasons but firstly the hulls will be 40 years old when they are replaced like for like by 4 Dreadnoughts. I suppose if you were prepared to spend billions on them the hulls could be extended for a little while longer, but then at the end of 10 years what ? Years before the hull sections of the 4th Dreadnought even gets into the DDH the entire UK DNE will be at maximum capacity building SSN(A) for RN (we want 12), plus the major parts for the RAN ones, so no more Dresdnoughts can be built.
The other small matter is they cannot be refuelled again so no damn use to anyone, they use a PWR2 reactor with an H type core containing fuel pellets of a certain design, size and structure, due to the cost of them there are no spares, nor can anymore be produced.
RR here in Derby is now 100% focussed on building PWR3 reactors, cores and fuel pellets and itâs a completely different beastie to the PWR2 used in Vanguards and Astutes they are not compatible.
Itâs not a case of not wanting to, even if funded itâs quite simply impossible, the entire plant on Raynesway is being refurbed, redesigned and expanded to increase capacity, speed production up and deliver the new reactors for both customers.
So no it ainât happening !
Point taken.
The UK needs another sub strategic arm to its nuclear deterrent so it can deter Russia from using a single or small number of tactical weapons as an escalate to deescalate ( part of the Russian nuclear weapon war book).
But US duel key free fall bombs is not it.. as that is not an adequate sub strategic deterrent.. the free fall bomb would be hard to use as a sub strategic deterrent as you need to target some part of meaningful Russia infrastructure, with a very high likelihood of success and you need to communicate you would use it âŚwhich you cannot if itâs duel keyâŚ
The UK needs to either pursue some form of UK air launched cruise missile, that can be launched from a sovereign controlled aircraft or as part of its new 2000km+ missile programme.
We could call it “Blue Steel”, spend billions and cancell it when ready.
Surprising that given the misgivings now aired by 2 of the main authors, this suggestion was left in the final report. I think Robertson is right that a long range heavy conventional missile might be a better option for bridging the gap between existing tactical weapons and nuclear strike. I think he is wrong to say,without specifying them, that there are other good reasons to consider buying F35A. There really aren’t. No UK weapons integrated, little industrial benefit, no use to the RN.
Personally I donât understand why the UK would not:
1) buy more F35bs to fit on its 6billion pounds worth of carriers..the ultimate strategic weapons⌠4 squadrons would be perfect.. so another 30-40ish
2) maximise the completely matured typhoon.. another 30 would allow for 7 front line squadrons.
Thatâs savings on only having 2 types of aircraft, as well as maximising UK airo industry output ready for the 6th generation offer..
Well that was pretty much the intention but then it spiralled down the drain to be replaced by “Faith, hope and charity”.
“I have every faith and hope they will be charitable”.
Agreed. đ
There’s probably a bigger difference between tranche 2 and tranche 4 Typhoons, than there is between F35A and F35B. Not sure how possible it would be to upgrade all older aircraft to a common standard with new builds.
‘Long range heavy strike weapons’- implicitly with conventional warheads, are simply part and parcel of conventional strike capabilities. Psychologically, the use of nuclear warheads, whether they are tactical or strategic, is seen as crossing the Rubicon, so it doesn’t really make sense to suggest that anything other than tactical nukes would constitute a proportionate response to the use of tactical nukes by an adversary. The reality is that- despite technological advances- conventional weapons are still nowhere close to matching the destructive power (within a small, easily delivered payload), of nuclear warheads MOAB has the power of 11 tonnes of TNT and weighs nearly 11 tonnes. WE177 weights ~0.5 tonnes and yields 500-200k tonnes TNT equivalent, depending on the variant. A conflict in which one side takes to flinging tactical nukes and the other tries to respond with ‘heavy’ conventional ordnance would put the latter at a clear disadvantage.
Agreed. đ
Agreed and the key is that for us every nuclear weapon is a deterrent first and foremost.. to deter you need to inflict catastrophic damage.. so a conventional strike will never act as a deterrent for a tactical nuclear strike. The only deterrent to a tactical nuclear strike is in reality a sub strategic nuclear deterrent..
1) conventional weapons simply are not destructive enough to deter
2) a full strategic counter value strike ( what our SSBNs provide) Will simply trigger a MAD response⌠so are not a deterrent to a tactical strike as Russia knows we would not likely trigger MAD over one tactical nuclear weapon.
The only deterrent likely to keep the tactical genie in the bottle is the ability to undertake a calibrated sub strategic strike.. 1-2 100kt into a counter force target without putting the strategic deterrent at risk.. that is essentially the purpose France has this capability.. itâs a final escalate to deescalate before France triggers MAD. Itâs why France makes it clear itâs not a tactical weapon.. it will never be used on a battlefield in that way,. Itâs a we are all going to die final warning.
Nailed it
An additional ÂŁ1 billion announced for Dragon fire to equip RN warships. Now…is that at a much cheaper unit cost eg not 250 million for two but that ÂŁ1 billion is for say 20+ systems? Or are we going to get another miserly 8 pairs/ sets?
I understand the potential importance of nuclear weapons. However, considering the review team had less than a year to produce a 144-page report, itâs not surprising thereâs some current confusion. Fortunately, we have a committee ready to step in and provide further clarity.
âSpeed is the essence of war.â
There’s been a lot of talk since Trump came to office about the UK providing the nuclear umbrella for Europe (by European nations and a little in Canada…), divesting ourselves from reliance on the US (everyone) and spending a bigger share of defence in the UK and Europe all while continuing to meet NTP obligations.
If the answer we came up with for these concerns is more US made aircraft, with US made bombs needing a dual key arrangement with the US, splitting our planned fifth-gen fleet, all while still having no control over weapons integration. Then someone needs a good slap.
If it’s about splitting the fleet for the RAF (while letting Typhoon production die, undermining Tempest and the Carriers, and still with no weapon integration control) then a flurry of even harder slaps are needed.
If we provide the umbrella beyond current warhead stocks and the NATO commitment, then it should be a 5th SSBN (unlikely) and/or UK made tactical nukes (warhead/delivery), with UK/European nation dual key arrangements on the Typhoons (later Tempest). With funding from European nations.
We are going to have to pony up now and buy more E7 as well as F35A.
The Warzone is reporting that the US is now cancelling E7 and scrapping E3 and itâs going to rely on E2 from the navy plus 5 more joint E2âs until Elon gets the satellites working.
The internet trolls and conspiracy theorists just turned the greatest airforce on earth into a second rate power.
We need to move up to at-least seven as a matter of priority.
I can see NATO AWACâs having to stand in Alaska very soon.
Unless Elon stops the special K and gets the satellites working đ
Yep essentially the US it seems is abandoning strategic AEW platforms and is going to survive using a tactical AEW systemâŚ. China is adding one more mark to its âcan we beat the USâ score card.. and it seems the western pacific nations are not buying the spend 5% on defence storyâŚ
What with the messages the US are giving Europe and the western pacific nations.. it seems that their plan is a complete retreat and get the pacific and European nations to fight their strategy enemies.. all the while selling stuff..
The E3 are on there last legs. there numinous comments on the Warzone why replacing E7 with E2 is going to cause issues
đąđąđ¤Źđ¤đ˘âšď¸ OMG!
To deter Russia you need to have the weapons, the will to use them and a method of delivery. We should not rely on any other country to provide any of these. All should be simple and preferably inexpensive. Spend the serious money on conventional weapons.
A nuclear capable storm shadow like weapon seems appropriate addition to the UK arsenal not to mention the nuclear weapons to go in them.
Keep it simple.
Like others have said, any freefall nuclear weapon has some, um, limitations.. But especially if another country has an effective veto on the the launch platform, the munition or the warhead.
On the other hand, a British variant of ASMP assembled by MBDA UK, with a UK warhead and integrated on Typhoon, would be an entirely different capability that wouldn’t necessitate buying F-35A. And would probably be cheaper.
A UK-built stand-off missile with UK-built warhead and launched from a UK-built aircraft from a UK airfield would mean actual and indisputable UK soveriegn control. And that would be a credible annd truly independant nuclear deterant… Just saying.