In a new Memorandum from the Council on Geostrategy, Christian Le Miere argues that the United Kingdom’s planned purchase of F-35A fighter aircraft marks a decisive shift in its nuclear posture, reintroducing an air-delivered nuclear capability and effectively restoring a British nuclear dyad for the first time in a generation.
The F-35A, unlike the short take-off and vertical landing F-35B variant already in UK service, is capable of carrying both conventional and nuclear payloads. It will enable the UK to participate in NATO’s nuclear-sharing mission, which relies on US B61 gravity bombs and involves aircraft contributions from seven other NATO allies.
While the UK’s Trident missile system continues to provide an independent sea-based deterrent, the F-35A would rely on US-controlled weapons and could only be employed following political authorisation from both London and Washington.
The UK has not maintained an air-delivered nuclear weapon since it retired the WE.177 bomb in 1998. Le Miere situates the restoration of this capability in a deteriorating strategic environment shaped by what he describes as “a revanchist Russia in the east and a declining American commitment to European security.” Under such conditions, he argues, “bolstering the UK’s nuclear deterrent [becomes] even more vital to regional strategic stability.”
The use of dual-capable aircraft, Le Miere contends, gives the UK greater flexibility in nuclear signalling and escalation management. Although the Trident system can be configured to deliver lower-yield munitions, any launch from a Vanguard-class submarine risks being interpreted by an adversary as a strategic strike. Aircraft-based delivery allows for a potentially more controlled and visible signalling option.
The F-35A purchase forms part of a wider re-expansion of the UK’s nuclear forces. Britain’s nuclear stockpile peaked at over 500 warheads in the 1970s, but had been reduced to a declared ceiling of 180 by the 2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review. That trajectory reversed with the 2021 Integrated Review, which raised the cap to 260 warheads. The new aircraft procurement, Le Miere argues, builds on this shift by diversifying delivery systems and extending deterrence commitments.
Yet the F-35A decision also raises questions of sovereignty. Because the aircraft will carry US weapons and be subject to NATO decision-making structures, it does not enhance the UK’s independent deterrent. Le Miere concludes by posing the central strategic question: should Britain develop its own air-delivered nuclear munition, or accept continued reliance on American capabilities?
The full article, UK reinforces nuclear mission, is available via the Council on Geostrategy’s Memorandum series at britainsworld.org.uk/s/memorandums.
and yet the F35s we purchase cannot launch our most advanced munitions. RAF needs the Typhoon for that.
Id strongly suggest additional typhoon order is required to bridge the gap until Tempest.
LM have proven themselves inept , obtuse and obstructive with the integration of key allies weaponry.
Even the US military moan that LM hog the F-35 software. That is why they stopped that with the F-47.
It’s not ineptitude it’s brilliant business. Forced to abandon its previous contract winning approach of bribery, Lockheed have devised an even better way of keeping the tax dollars ( and pounds) flowing. They have made sure they keep ownership and control of all the key software, promise improvement when the programme attracts too much criticism and then deliver years late and way over budget. Too big to fail.
Britain shouldn’t spend any more on F35 of any variant. The @£10b cost of the first 48 has given us no more than a token carrier force with severely limited weaponry. Availability is shocking and support costs are rising not falling.
The F35A decision is just stupid but can easily be reversed. But we are currently stuck with this hangar queen for carrier operations. Whether anyone will think the unthinkable and seek an alternative, elusive though one might be, I very much doubt.
Having discussed this on here a lot, I’ve firmly come to the conclusion that the equipment procurement plan in the Autumn will announce the Tempest order ( offical tri govenment launch at the same time), with an in service aim of 2035.
Baring this in mind, the Thypoon production line has to be cleared now and the hall completely reconfigured for the totally different Tempest production techniques, with 3d printing of sub assemblies, robot assembly etc, etc.
These simply isn’t time to order and assemble more Thypoons for the RAF.
As I’ve said before, Spain is looking to get rid of Tranche 2 jets, seems like an easy RAF win to me….
Are these the 25 tranche 4 Typhoons that Spain ordered in 2024?
displaced by….the Tranche 4
Yes Paul, Spain hs planning to get rid of them, those 24 could easily be purchased by the MOD, flown to Warton and be upgraded to the latest spec for 15 years of further service.
Its the answer to a quick boost in the Typoon fleet and keeping Warton busy.
We had our own gravity bomb, the WE177, which could be dropped from Tornado and Jaguar aircraft. We had over 200 of them; a number were deployed to the Falklands. They were retired in 1998. A couple of dozen training round WE177 are on display at various museums around the country.
Apparently, the operational WE177 were dismantled, but I’ll wager the MoD has a few pits stashed away at Aldermaston or somewhere. Typhoon could easily be adapted to carry WE177
I do wonder about a new build, low yield WE177A with Paveway IV guidance.
The govt is investing £15b in the AWE nuclear warhead programme. Aldermaston will be a busy place.
Total waste of time.
Germany has co reed this off with their larger F35B purchase.
We would have been better off putting g the effort into generating CSG and conventional munition stocks.
Politics so Starmer can Grandstand.
Agreed
Yep, spot on….
A genius maneuver to solve the problem of how to spend 5% while still remaining utterly dependent on the USA.
I suspect this one is far more RAF than Starmer. This is the RAF getting what it wants at the expense of The carrier force sadly a case of inter-service rivalry over national need.
Even if we did resurrect the WE177, it is still sub optimal as a means of delivery.
And F35A is surely a better aircraft for that mission than Typhoon.
Typhoon was not designed as an Interdiction/Strike asset, neither has it the stealth to penetrative without SEAD DEAD first.
So you stick WE177 on a F35A, and we have no Tankers capable of refuelling it!!
So a soveriegn bomb is not sovereign, as we need NATO to tank the asset.
So until we have our own stand off weapon plus means to refuel, this is all a political willy waving waste of time.
Apart from more cost effective training aircraft.
Would have been better to maximise F35B plus the QEC for which we paid billions for.
If we are wanting to expand the RAF and give them a proper tool for Strike missions, then indeed buy a good number of F35A, plus upgrade Voyager, while keeping B numbers intact.
But HMG are not showing any signs of that, and are all talk.
Aren’t they.
I believe that the RAF’s Voyager fleet was designed to use either refuelling system. We have other American aircraft that also need to use the flying boom method to refuel: C-17 Globemaster, RC-135W, E-7 Wedgetail, P-8A Poseidon. Maybe the forthcoming MoD equipment review will include converting some of our refueling Voyagers – or even buying some new.
We have more types that cannot be refuelled by our own assets than can.
Wacky. But true.
Yup.
We won’t know until the defence investment plan gets released in the autumn. The reason they were able to announce a purchase of 12 F35A was because it was part of a pre greed F35B purchase.
Orders for any further F35’s won’t be available until 2030 so they wont announce anything until the autumn.
Robertson review was independent of the military which means its role was to inform the spending not as under the Tory’s announce the spending.
However they have consistently said a total F35 purchase of 138.
We shall see.
Even you sounded like you’d lost hope the other day, Jim, re F35 expansion.
If the defence investment plan is anyhting like what the government has done to the rest of the economy God help us.
F-35 drop tanks may finally be happening. That should solve some range issues.
Absolutely. 12 A,’s is just a token number. The weaponry is controlled by a foreign government so it isn’t a sovereign capability. Unless a glide WE.177 successor or tactical FC/ASW is developed or similar, it’s grandstanding.
5th Gen Stealth now offers the ability to get close enough (maybe, who knows, who cares ?) Tempest should take over that capability. Effectively, These 12 aircraft will be used for training.
Whether it has a “made in USA or made in UK sticker matters not one jot if the bomb is ever used.
“There, I got all dull for once”.
But surely it may have some influence in regards the decision to use them ?
As I said, Who cares ? Seriously, If we ever get to that point then, well you can guess the rest.
“Can you smell pork ?”
The Strategic Defence Review, published on 2 June, stated:
“Commence discussions with the United States and NATO on the potential benefits and feasibility of enhanced UK participation in NATO’s nuclear mission.”
However, during an evidence session with the Defence Committee on 11 June, Lord Robertson, the SDR’s lead reviewer, stated:
“The fact that it’s not there indicates that we weren’t terribly enthusiastic about it.”
The UK officially announced its decision to procure 12 F-35A jets for a nuclear role on 24 June, during the NATO summit in The Hague.
I mention this because, while the SDR left the door open for further discussion, the decision to acquire 12 F-35As for a nuclear role—announced later on 24 June—was a political decision made after the SDR’s publication, not a direct recommendation of the review itself. I want the government to get a wiggle on when it comes to defence, but this seems very rushed.
I personally think having F-35As in the OCU is a good move, but I’d leave nuclear sharing to ENATO countries that don’t have their own nuclear deterrent or expensive aircraft carriers to pay for.
#26 ?
🤣
#Day30
Bugger, I lost 4 days somewhere !
Sorry this it not a return to the Nuclear Dyad. We don’t say Germany has a nuclear deterrent because it can deliver US duel keyed B61s.. so we cannot say we have a nuclear Dyad because we can now do the same.
Only when we have a sovereign air launched nuclear capability or a ground launched capability can we say we have a nuclear Dryad. Personally I think this is a bit of a joke. The F35A buy is clearly a cynical move by the RAF that will weaken the carrier force. If we really wanted a nuclear Dyad we would be working on a warhead that can be mounted on a cruise missile, air and or ground launched. There are plenty of options to then deliver this… the easiest method would be joint working with the French on their new air launched missile.
In other news there seems to be some political manoeuvrings happening in Germany over its F35 order. Germany has ordered 35 F35As to replace its 80 still in service Tornados for ground attack and the NATO nuclear role. However some in parliament and the military have said 35 are not enough and it should be at least 50. So have stated that “we are looking at another 15 aircraft”. Meanwhile the Germany ministry of defence have denied the claims and said the order still stands at 35. So not outright denying that an additional aircraft buy may be considered. I think this is overt political manoeuvring in result to Dassault stating that Airbus are no longer required as part of the SCAF program. With a threatened further buy of F35s (although officially denied), shows Germany is considering other options to SCAF.
With respect to the RAF getting F35As, it was always on the cards. As this was the aircraft they really wanted to replace Tornado, when the FOAS program got canned and merged with JSF. I am pretty certain that further orders of A will be made, hopefully not at the expense of ordering additional Bs to make sure a carrier can be deployed with at least two squadrons, plus another squadron in case a surge is required. I do see the point of going down the B61 route, as it’s a response to Russia’s nuclear postering and rhetoric. But I do see this as an interim response until GCAP comes into service. As getting a sovereign weapon integrated on the F35 is taking years (a decade), so why not go with an interim choice. Then with GCAP we have more control over what weapons are integrated and when. Where a sovereign stand-off nuclear weapon can be developed.