The government has said it has no plans to expand the UK’s nuclear deterrent beyond its submarine-based system.
Responding to a written question from Liberal Democrat MP Cameron Thomas, defence minister Luke Pollard said the UK is acquiring at least 12 F-35A aircraft, which will enable participation in NATO’s Dual Capable Aircraft role. He stressed, however, that this does not represent an expansion of the UK’s independent deterrent.
Pollard stated that “the aircraft will allow the UK to participate in NATO’s Dual Capable Aircraft (DCA) nuclear mission”, but said that “the nuclear weapons allocated to the NATO DCA nuclear mission are United States (US) nuclear weapons and the US retains control and custody over them”.
He also referenced NATO doctrine, noting that “NATO’s 2022 Strategic Concept states that the strategic nuclear forces of the Alliance, particularly those of the US, are the supreme guarantee of the security of the Alliance”.
Addressing the core of the question, Pollard said: “The Government has no plans to expand the UK nuclear deterrent beyond our existing submarine-based system”. He added that the UK would nevertheless continue to keep its nuclear posture under review in response to changes in the international security environment.
Standard answer, what did the Liberal MP expect?
For me, the nuclear F35A nonsense was primarily political and gave something for Starmer to grandstand about in Paris while other nations expand equipment orders. Whether the machivelian RAF approved it as others say here, who knows, and who can blame them, I don’t.
There are several sites in Europe that have a storage area for the USB61s, one of them a few miles away from Marham.
NATO is not lacking in this area. It didn’t need the UK to be able to join.
My thought is that this is an attempt to get the US more embroiled in the defence of the UK by encouraging the storage of American nuclear bombs on British soil and the subsequent deployment of additional forces and infrastructure to support that end.
I understand, however, that the return of US B61s to the SSA – Secure Storage Area, that already existed at Lakenheath was already scheduled before this. It was already undergoing refurb due to the changing threat level in Europe.
The forces were already here, the USAF guard personnel at Lakenheath and MoD police who work on the perimeter outside the wire.
Certainly something of that sort I suspect clearly we aren’t being told the true motivation, it may even be step opening up the potential to employ uk weapons one day, right I think that last possibility isn’t specified if so, others perhaps we should be better informed, depends what they are but I am glad at least the question is asked so it can be discussed on places like this as it might have serious future implications.
One thing that is worth noting is that Vance has said it scares him that France and the UK have nuclear weapons, so perhaps we really should be debating what the future of our nuclear deterrent might be ( especially in terms of Tempest as a uk national nuclear deterrent might not be possible with the F-35). So if a future MAGA or other far right US Govt refuses to do business with Britain on such matters perhaps we should be planning for that now and perhaps a few questions asked on the matter even though they WON’T equally get a straight answer. We are in a world of nuance now and we better start planning how to negotiate it, be it those inside de or outside the actual Govt.
Though not directly related I think in any such discussion we should note how there are the equivalent of the US far right influencers at work and growing here. Be it Richard Littlejohn urging Trump to buy Britain (hopefully a little jokingly but who knows) Laurence Fox urging Trump to invade Britain and Tommy Robinson claiming he would join the Russian army to invade Britain. We can laugh but they used to at Nick Fuentes, Shapiro and Kirk and Vance is where he is due specifically to the deeply scary sponsorship of Peter Thiel who thinks silicon life has a right to replace carbon life, it’s a matter of evolution.
Well I do think these questions should be asked, if you know you will never get an accurate or relevant answer well nobody would bother asking almost any question beyond the contrived bland between political supporters planted at PMs Questions. Indeed why bother having PM Questions at all no actual answers are practically ever given (esp since Boris). In the end it is part of the process of Democracy undertaken by opposition parties, it’s about messaging to the voter or promoting debate, as we are doing here, George clearly has taken notice of the question after all. If we don’t bother on the basis of what’s the point then can progressively go on to question why bother with an opposition (who are kept out of serious inside knowledge) and down the line even question the point of Democracy at all. I think we only have to look across the pond to see how delicate and under threat true democracy and the acceptance of opposition can be and how Govt spokesmen/women now deride any question as lies, nonsense and even ‘far left extremist’ That didn’t simply develop overnight but thankfully it can still show the audience what is happening and judge for themselves. Thereafter if we decide not to take notice then we get the Govt we deserve as in the US sadly.
I’m usually sceptical on MPs motives as well, but this chap is ex RAF so fair play.
The message is for vladolf putler that his tactical nuclear weapons will be opposed by credible NATO tactical nuclear weapons and the UK is willing and soon able to join the half dozen nations already in the shared agreement.
Pootin knows he can’t use the Strategic nuclear weapons so could only consider using the tactical nuclear weapons. This F35A order is more pressure to deterr him.
Obviously the former USSR power station accident showed that nuclear contamination will likely travel north from the sovereign democratic nation of Ukraine into the ruzzian motherland so is a desperately bad choice. Almost as bad as invading a neighbour country that was the technology powerhouse of USSR.
Slava Ukrainia 🇺🇦
Heroyam Slava 💙 💛
Agreed, It doesn’t make any practical or operational sense to send our limited F‑35As 80 miles from Marham to Lakenheath just to pick up B61s, especially when the US already has dozens of F‑35As based there. So yes, it’s largely political nonsense.
Having them in the OCU will still bring some positives — reduced maintenance costs, added range etc.
Yes, I can get on board with that, and that only.
I love it how this was spun as an expansion and improvement, when it’s actually a cut.
80 miles? West Naarfook to NW Saarfook about 40 miles. Flying time, from take off to landing around 7 minutes.
Good spot, I was way off there for some reason! Thanks.
I have Geography “A” Level,zi even know the land and soil composition in East Anglia 😁
😂
The UK having the F35A and participating in the DCA mission allows the UK in future to potentially buy B61’s should the USA pull out of NATO.
It reduces the cost and purchase price of the OCU squadron, opens up a range of new weapons capabilities should the UK ever need them and gives the OCU a war time role.
Seems like a pretty decent idea.
B61’s are not for sale. And never will be.
The OCU already exists, so the purchase price has already been paid, as has the vast sums upgrading Marham.
Yes they are cheaper to run, apparently?
Maximises B’s for the Carriers, allegedly, as the overall number that can be used drops.
Weapons, no idea. The RAF is short of options with those anyway.
Wartime role. In war assets from OCUs would be used as needed regardless if they were F35A or F35B.
Creates a mini fleet in a mini fleet. A situation used before further down the road for cutting types as “uneconomical and inefficient to maintain.”
Now if the government had gone and bought 60 A’s to supplement the tranche 2 Bs we’d be in business. But we all know that is pie in the sky as there isn’t the money with GCAP eating up the budget.
By design of course, GCAP means sovereign capability and feeds the MIC, their main objective regards “defence” spending, so lets not let silly things like equipping your forces in the most cost effective and suitable manner for the threats get in the way.
“…Maximises B’s for the Carriers, allegedly, as the overall number that can be used drops…”
Would these A’s for OCU allow for another RN operational squadron deployed to the carriers, to be formed, surely if B’s are swapped out?
No idea.
I doubt it? As surely some Bs must remain with the OCU for VTOL training?
“..allows the UK in future to potentially buy B61’s should the USA pull out of NATO…”
I can Not honestly, see the U.S selling any Nukes to the U.K!
Couldn’t agree with you more. Cpmplete nonsense. Another 12 B version would have made the RAF and RN squadrons interchangable. Now they’re not so another daft Starmer idea and another £2 billion squandered.
An all together resentfully poor investment. For a moment, I allowed myself to believe that it had been shelved, but no.
Tragic honestly.
With Tempest in a decade ,it should be a priority to make a free fall / glide bomb or a cruise missile that could be adopted from both Typhoon and Tempest.
If Britain makes it’s own warheads already, and current “effectors” can be manufactured cheaply, and AI and quantum computing can speed up testing then this should be started.
On one hand we are told AI and drones, sonar gliders will make the Atlantic a Bastian where subs can be detected, there is nothing to stop an enemy navy doing the same to Dreadnought.
I agree we need glide bombs, lots of glide bombs.
Paveway IV has already been tested with a glide kit and it’s compatible with F35 and typhoon and no doubt Tempest.
But after seeing how effective large Russian glide bombs are it’s would be nice to have something in the 2000lb range with an extended range wing kit.
I wonder how hard it would be to make a UK warhead that could fit in a Paveway IV (so already integrated in F35B for internal carry), in Storm Shadow and, eventually, STRATUS.
The Trident W76-2 version is a reduced 7kt yield tactical version. I have long thought that a W76-2 warhead packaged into a Paveway IV body with the JDAM-ER wingkit would be the cheapest, quickest way of regaining a UK tactical nuke. If you keep the WIBBIs under control you should get 25 for £750 m.
More importantly they need to look at a future where we can’t rely on trident. We should not assume we will continue to have access to them.
I agree, nuclear independence should now be our number one priority, we should rapidly role out a Storm shadow derived tactical nuclear cruise missile compatible with Typhoon and begin rapid development of a Trident II replacement SLBM.
We can probably get MBDA on the case bringing in expertise from Ariane who build the M51.
SLBM’s like Trident II and M51 are forty year old technology. It’s not that difficult to replicate. No reason why we can’t continue nuclear cooperation with the USA just as we do with France and use a different SLBM.
Even if you don’t believe the Trump administrations rhetoric about the UK and France having to give up their weapons what is the chances that a US defence contractor can one day field a timely replacement for trident D5.
Do we want to be in the position the USAF finds itself in with Sentinal where the contractor can’t deliver and cancelation becomes a distinct possibility.
A UK SLBM project will cost round £7billion, a small investment in an overall £100 billion deterrent system.
Its not building the missiles and warheads thats the problem its the re entry vehicles and targeting systems that will be hard/expensive
I believe the problem we have in the UK is an inability to manufacture the large diameter solid rocket motors. Ariane can do it but I don’t think it would be a good idea for either of us to share SLBM motor production with the French. Roxel (Sea Venom, ASRAAM, GMLRS) don’t build their biggest motors in the UK and Avio (Aster) build in Italy.
That’s why I think Nightfall is less about getting an actual ballistic missile in service than seeing if there are any SMEs in the UK who are worth investing in as insurance against the rug being pulled from under us Trident-wise.
Were they ever talking about independent UK nukes for the F-35A?
Do we have any use for them aside from carrying American nukes? DCA makes sense if you have the jets lying around anyway and want to make them as useful as possible.
If you’re eating deep into your own extremely limited budget just to provide a service for the USA it’s completely bonkers.
Well they’re apparently for the training squadron, very expensive training aircraft…
Srsly? The OCU?
Yes mate, they stated as such. The A’s will be used by 207 Sqn, the OCU, and have this nuke wartime role. Quite how they train for it and in what numbers with only 12 aircraft remains to be seen.
No. But many here were. And if there was money aplenty I’d support it. Trident and nothing else isn’t great and gives fewer options to HMG
A few JSM would give them a non nuclear, precision strike role.
It was all smoke and mirrors to move to buying the F-35A
Exactly.
It’s the RAF claiming “The F-35A obviously gives a much bigger bang for the buck than the F-35B”. Quote courtesy of Bagwell, Ex RAF hater of the Navy.
Only if they get more than 12 of them
We need something but definitely need to move away from American supplied they are proving to be unreliable
Like what ?.
Tempest.
Eventually, we should use the Bs for the carriers and Tempest for the rest. For the time being use Typhoon and some F-35Bs for RAF as well. Just like we have. There’s no need or room for the As.
I’m not wholly convinced that taking on a nuclear role was the main driver for ordering the F-35A.
At least some of us thought that 72 F35Bs for the imperial carrier was excessive and would leave the RAF with too few combat aircraft for its main airpower roles. Coupled with that were the obvious operational advantages of the A over the B, plus the former being a lot simpler to maintain and 25% – 30% cheaper. In an ideal world, we would be aiming to have 72 As for stealth SEAD and interdiction, restoring this dedicated capability lost by the non-replacement of the Tornado.
Viewed in that light, the purchase of 12 As made sense. Some of us had urged that 62 Bs was sufficient to equip three squadrons, each with 10 frontline aircraft. Well, that is what we are now getting. Switching the remaining 12 aircraft to the A version kept the numbers up but cut the cost by maybe £200m, which is handy in the cash-strapped budget. And it maybe in time turn out to be just the first tranche of As, who knows.
Not that the RAF or MOD could say any of that too loudly, given the RN’s ruthless insistence on being the leading service and therefore the first to the feeding trough
So the explanation of the As alleviating the training burden in the OCU (probably 3 of them) and being able to carry free fall nuclear bombs, even though we don’t have any, was plausible enough.
And maybe somewhere at a very senior level, Vance’s antipathy to the UK and France having their own independent deterrents was raining the question: what do we do if a Vance USA decided to stop collaboration on Trident? The only alternative would be to settle for free fall bombs, despite access being wholly under the political control of MAGA politicians for the forseeable future.
Who knows?
.
I agree with all of the F-35 argument, and I think that’s where the govt is going. Warton has enough Typhoon work with the Türkiye order. With respect to Trident a new SLBM with France might the way to go.
Agree regards Tornado. I do not blame the RAF wanting a dedicated Strike Aircraft.
The alternative to Trident is to develop UK missiles or buy to French. Freefall bombs are not a serious second strike deterrent.
72 is not enough for even 1 carrier, if you want to deploy consistently you need more than 1 airwing, and the aim is for at least 24 aircraft in an airwing. This 12 buy is reliant on actually buying any more than that, otherwise theyre the most expensive trainers weve ever had.
I heard they were being painted Red, with a big Lightning (arrow) stripe.
Comming to an Air Show near you !!!!
There is no chance whatsoever of getting more than one air wing of F-35Bs, no spare money for that indulgence. And no need for a second wing: the carrier will get a max of 24-30 aircraft, which is well more than enough, with the remaining 32-38 ashore, in training or – the bit that navy fans always ignore – supporting the land forces, which of course is the other half of the F-35Bs given role.
It would be far more useful to get some more As for the RAF’s interdiction role.The carrier will I fear be a bit of a side-show, and maybe a rather vulnerable one, in any peer conflict in the North Atlantc.