The UK may acquire F-35A fighter jets as part of a broader effort to deepen its contribution to NATO’s nuclear sharing arrangements, following 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 UK’s current F-35 fleet consists entirely of the B variant, which is capable of short takeoff and vertical landing operations from its two Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers. However, the F-35A is the variant certified for use with the B61 nuclear bomb, making it essential for participation in the air-delivered aspect of NATO’s nuclear deterrent.
Any UK acquisition of F-35A aircraft would likely be aimed at enhancing interoperability with key allies and reinforcing NATO’s strategic deterrent posture, particularly as the Alliance faces growing threats from Russia and emerging nuclear challenges globally. It would also complement broader SDR goals of moving the UK to full warfighting readiness and reaffirming its position as a leading contributor to NATO.
But not instead of the second tranche of F35B. That needs to happen before, or as well as, a F35A purchase.
And any F35A should be using a stand off weapon.
Cancelling the 27 F35B in the second tranche leaves the QEC short of any possible surge capacity and undermines the money we spent on our most flexible assets.
Maybe Ark Royal UCAS progress is such that they envisage that these assets will be able to supplement what Bs we have sufficiently?
I agree, if we were as previous reports suggested getting as many as 100 more F35’s which seems reasonable then a second buy or 25 B variants with a further purchase of 75 A variants makes sense giving three front line squadrons for each.
I think the UK participating with the B61 mission makes zero sense. The last thing we need is another nuclear weapon capability that has anything to do with the USA.
A stand off weapon fired from Typhoon would allow Germany and Italy to participate as well as Sweden potentially from their Gripen.
It does seem the world is moving on but HMG is still clinging to a “special relationship” that no longer exists.
“clinging to a “special relationship” that no longer exists.”
Except that in the world of nuclear co operation, ASW surveillance, 5 eyes and UK Military ISTAR it very much does.
So what does HMG do? Labour were so anti US in opposition, they get into power and attitudes change when they see the realities.
We cannot just unplug from the US in these areas, we’d be hamstrung.
Developing our own capabilities is fine, but would take a long time.
HMG starts preparing now by developing independent solutions. It’s unlikely 2028 will be the end of American isolationism rather the beginning.
We have plenty of other options if we have sufficient time to develop them.
I think we have to remember that Trump will not be in the White House forever. Some point in the future a more moderate – reasonable pro Europe, NATO friendly president will come back into power again. Then you will have a natural swing back to the USA and Europe working together again. I personally don’t believe this current situation has changed for good. When it comes to the F35B’s totally agree that a purchase of F35A’s should not stop there being a second tranche of F35B’s – Very much needed for carrier operations. My guess would be a smaller tranche than Jim mentioned, perhaps 48 or less. 😁Just thought I would put ones two pennies worth in. Have a good day all. 👍
*48 F35A or less*
That happened in 2020 then reverted back in 2024. Obama and Biden were not fans of the UK for sure and the Republican Party is increasingly isolationist, in many ways Trump is a moderate in republican circles about engagement with Europe, Looking at young US politicans JD Vance on the Republican side and AOC on the Democratic side it seems there is very little future for the transatlantic relationship and especially the UK special relationship over the 40 or 50 year life cycle of our nuclear weapon programs.
Why would we tie our selves to such risk on the hope that a better president comes along one day. The long term trends are very clear to see.
We are spending £15 billion on our own warheads for trident
£31 billion on our own submarines
France spent €5 billion developing M51 and €3 billion acquiring it.
Given the UK is spending £46 billion on an independent deterrent system why wouldn’t we spend the extra £6 billion and make it completely independent. Why should we have anything to do with a third country for such an important aspect of defence. Polaris and Trident made sense given the cost and complexity at the time and the grave threat from the USSR.
It makes less sense today and will probably be a liability by the 2050’s.
Same goes for using B61.
Sticking a small warhead in a Storm Shadow is an engineering piece of piss.
Little Israel did this in a harpoon ASM on a shoe string budget in complete secrecy.
Did the special relationship ever actually exist? When has it ever benefitted us? It’s just something that is said as an excuse to hide from the reality of our much reduced global power. Basically aligning with the US so we look like we have a say in international matters.
That’s the point and McMillan mistake: The special relationship means the US are the only interlocutor as UK Will always somewhat agree them so no much need to discuss with UK. The ongoing discussions of De Gaulle with british leaders from Churchill to McMillan are enlightening: he never understood why uk accepted US predominance and wished uk to be fully independant (aka: « a gaullist uk).
Played a key part in the Falklands war.
Or indeed vice versa in many areas, hence there being zero appetite on either side to do so.
Frank62-indeed. Saved that operation on many fronts including crucially, Sidewinders, without which the Harriers would not have achieved the success that turned the tide
The official position of the US government was to try and get control of the islands by UN vote to have US peacekeepers there under ownership of Argentina. It was only when it became clear that the UK was not going to back down and was headed for war that their position changed. Effectively we forced their hands.
The sidewinders were provided in secret and it’s not entirely clear if this was officially approved by the ragon or if the sec defence just did it. A bit like it’s not clear if Boris approved the Ukraine support at the start or if
Ben Wallace acted alone.
We will never develop our own capabilities if we keep handing the Americans all our defence spending, there inevitably is nothing left.
I agree about the B61. If we must have tactical and intermediate weapons, it will be for the reason Julian Lewis talked about in Parliament yesterday, because we no longer trust the American’s short-range nuclear deterrent. The idea that “Germany offers a useful precedent” is nonsense. Their bombs are American bombs controlled by America and paid for by Germany. However if we don’t trust exact programme why would be buy into it? Isn’t this what the Germans are worried about and are off crying to the French?
Then, the cost of another leg of the tripod is bad enough, spending it all in America (apart from a small share of F-35 purchases) is worse.
However, the F-35A is also problematic. Is this the RAF getting the F-35A through the back door, a plane they don’t have to share with the Navy? If we go down that route, what are the implications for Tempest? If we had infinite budget, having F-35B for the Navy, F-35A and Tempest for the RAF by 2040 would be a wholly good thing, but we don’t. Even on 3% of GDP this is stretching things. As always a decision will be made to cut something at some point.
Not to mention the limitations that come with F-35A’s boom refuelling system (or more accurately the limitations of us not having it fitted to Voyager). That means we’d then need to either fund the addition of probe and drogue to F-35A (the so-called D model Canada was looking at) or we’d have to upgrade Voyager – a much better overall option.
Regardless, with an increasingly unreliable US, B61 and nuclear weapon sharing is a poor call. We’d be much better off buying ASMP-R and integrating it on Typhoon, and then collaborating with France on a replacement system.
Morning Daniele and Jim
F35A. Am I dreaming? Having put forward the idea and been “shot down” here I actually re- thought. The “B” is apparently likely to become more expensive as the USMC are cutting back on numbers in favour of the “C”. so is it realistic to buy another 25/30/35 or whatever? We need some to enable carriers to be both deployed. Take the existing force to sixty perhaps? Two squadrons of 10/12 for each carrier supported by UAV’s.? I wonder whether the RAF would be just as well supplied if they had another 25/30 Typhoons, including the ECR versin Would fit in well with the Anglo German agreement. Then wait for Tempest.
The defence review called for the purchase of the A model not us. Previous reports were the RAF was looking at buying 100 more F35. I can see a 50.50 split A and B being a good idea if the 100 figure is accurate.
The RAF getting 75 more F35 (as we already committed to 25 more) and maybe 2 E7’s would be pretty small uplift compared to what the navy is getting (5 more SSN and 6 more SC.)
Yes, I know it was the SDR Jim. I was just surprised that the government were considering the “A”at all. Surely what the RAF needs is mass so waiting for yet another U.S. product when we haven’t even ordered another batch o”B” doesn’t make sense to me. I don’t think the RAF has a cat in hell’s chance of getting 100 more of anything, never mind F35’s. Two more Wedgetail is good but again the SDR says “may” so when.
Yea, I read that a while back and was surprised that we hadn’t heard more about it on here.
USMC reducing their F35B order from 353 to 280 aircraft, and increasing their F35C order from 67 to 140.
Same total, different split.
Reasons cited were:
1) 33% longer range (1200 mile vs 900 mile).
2) 50% greater weapons load
3) Concerns about the F35Bs maintenance needs
4) Higher unit cost for the F35B
5) Desire to integrate more closely with USN (who only operate F35C variant and want USMC to act as their carrier air wing reserve).
Of particular note I thought was the divergence in the variant price tag (which was to be expected by most I think).
F35A $82m
F35B $109m
F35C $102m
The only point there that I can see being really important is the weapons load.
In recent statistics the maintenance requirements were actually higher for F35C than B. The range is nullified by operating the C in CATOBAR, where loads of fuel is needed in case of go-arounds and to wait in the carrier landing pattern. The USN could surely just buy more Cs and cut the Marine order wholesale, surely?
@TorpedoJ
Good insight on the range point.
Separate budgets for competing services, so don’t see the USMC handing over a big chunk of their budget to the USN.
USMC do need F35Bs to operate from their Wasp/America class LHDs (of which there are currently 9, increasing to 11).
I’m guessing a total of 280 could provide about 12-15 front line squadrons of F35Bs (they are increasing squadron size from 10 to 12 aircraft I believe). That’s just about enough to put one on squadron on each ship, with a few spare (although the chances of all ships being available at the same time is slim).
Not sure what USMC doctrine is on the use of F35s outside of LHD ops, and whether that is evolving in response to the growing China threat.
F35As? I like the rest if the SDR but not this. It’s so short-termist when should be building a sovereign capability.
Surely it would be cheaper to put a nuclear warhead on Storm Shadow and develop a follow-on missile or buy and integrate the French nuclear missile as the interim solution before then also switching to a sovereign follow-on.
This means we could fire it from Typhoon and later Tempest. Tempest in particular seems ideally suited for this role.
Evening Geoffrey!
Sorry, just seen this.
I wonder if it is the escalating cost of the B that is driving this, as others suggest.
I want more B before we ever buy any A’s, to maximise the QEC as I said. But would accept 12 rather than 27 to get to 60, it is too thin really, but with the Drones and the UCAV maybe it will be enough, if the tech matures enough with the hybrid wings?
But in the wider scheme of things, if that enabled money for more Typhoon or more A400 or P8 or E7 I’d accept it.
On the A. I worry about Tempest if we buy it, and I’m reluctant to but more American after they delay integration of our weapons ( by design I expect? ) Yet I agree with the need for a tactical nuclear option alongside Trident, and the A is the only realistic game in town for that, from what I read, so, we’ll see.
If we are at 3% soon, it won’t matter so much, buy both.
People will still take years to train, and infrastructure years to build.
If what we are hearing is true, then Tempest will have a much greater payload/range than F-35A so it is like comparing apples & pears. If the RAF just gets 14-15 F-35A for NATO nuclear duties, then fine. I agree that a large number(fifty-ish) of RAF F-35A would put Tempest at risk from HM Treasury.
Hi Daniele. It won’t come as a surprise to you that I don’t like “tactical” nukes with a KT rating of 5/6 times the Hiroshima bomb so I’ll move by that one. On the “A” itis because of Tempest that I changed my mind. Five years ago, maybe but now we’re getting too close so we shouln’t move that way. Hybrid air wings is the only way forward because there is no money…as usual! As for the moneymy friend 2.5 per cent in three years and three per cent maybe in ten? It beggars belief, doesn’t it?
Their initial position is always into the next Parliament.
Their get out clause.
Same as Sunaks pledge, into next Parliament.
The 12 SSN decades from now is even more facial. Unless they are seen to be laying the groundwork and getting orders for long lead items in now.
I think the review talks about ‘opening discussions with the US’ about the UK ‘sharing in the NATO nuclear mission’. My interpretation is that the UK govt is working hard in the role of trans Atlantic bridge builder to maintain the US commitment to, and integrity of NATO. They may be trying to get the US to base US F-35A here. Putin’s great ambition is to split the US from Europe.
“They may be trying to get the US to base F-35A here”
There are already 2 squadrons of F-35A at RAF Lakenheath, and work going on at Lakenheath and press releases suggest that those squadrons already have nuclear certified variants of the F-35A and will have access to the B61-12
Mmm. That’s the way the wind is blowing then. Maybe the discussions with the US are about 2 squadrons of RAF F-35As. Quick fix. Can you rent F-35s 🙂
F35As replaced the F15Cs at Lakenheath a while ago.
But now that the F15Es are leaving too (announced in the last month or so), it’s not clear if they are going to be replaced. Maybe when the first F15EX squadrons start to stand up?
Maybe Trump is hinting we should buy 2 squadrons of F -35As
It’s 2004 again. Plans then included 60+ ‘C’s or 60 ‘A’ s alongside 60 -90 Bs subject to a catobar decision then due in 2005
Agreed.
But buying 27 F35B and 30 ish F35A kills the headroom for typhoon order.
RAF will be on manoeuvres to have 50-60 F35A…..mark my words…..
Thing with F35B is dispersal as all you need is a large concrete handstand and a 4 or 5* hotel nearby….
I’d prefer a Typhoon buy to a F35A buy.
But I can understand why the RAF prefer to spend their money on the F35.
But the issue is that Typhoon isn’t nuclear certified?
Even Germany baulked at the costs of nuclear certifying Typhoon. I am not sure why it is so bad as it was designed with that in mind. Maybe nothing was ever done about it in the later iterations once Cold Thaw thinking took over?
RAF would also like to be back at the nuclear table as they can see the budget that RN SSBNs get to do their thing.
This has then got to get past the ‘buy British’ test….
There will be no typhoon orders, it’s not in review and government never mentioned it no matter how hard the unions pressed.
Sad hut very likely true.
The only plus is that if Tempest is delayed, F35 will likely be a more effective platform for longer than Typhoon would be (but will it have any or even very many UK weapons integrated, even ten years from now?).
It grates though, given how we are already overly dependent on the (increasingly erratic) US as a supplier.
I’d love both Typhoons and F35s but if I had to choose it would be F35 for the survivability.
Typhoon’s best feature its current weapons fit-out relative to F35, but that discrepancy won’t be that great by the time any new orders actually get delivered.
In my addled state this morning I initially read the headline to mean a fleet of nuclear powered aircraft.
I have mixed views on the F35b, as it stands it is rather limited in its application. Whilst I accept that the ‘upgrade’ path is not in our own hands I do wonder if we could be doing more. Additionally, do we really want to buy any more planes that, a least for half a decade more, are limited to dropping bombs and using outdated air to air missiles?
Good Morning Daniele.100% agree. The F35B in sufficient numbers is crucial to the operation of the QECs. Converting the carriers to CATOBAR would I think be a bad choice-not only because of the enormous cost and downtime involved but because the B has more than enough performance for required task-many multiple times that of the Harriers. Would not be good value for money
We should cancel ALL f35 orders, we can’t trust the yanks enough to rely on these over priced heaps of crap. We should build our own, speed up our own developments or perhaps reinstate some of our old planes
Sorry George, but Germany never announced any Rhino purchase. That was just a comment made by von der Leyen and never official policy. Neither the F/A-18E nor F are nuclear capable.
No, but it was seriously considered before. The Nuclear Sharing was a very sensitive political discussion, and while Tornado had some useful life left in it, it was not so urgent to decide on the replacement. The long overdue decision to buy the F35 was then decided in a surprisingly quick pace after russia invaded Ukraine. Before that, the F18 was seriously considered despite the fact that it is not really ideal for this task.
One reason Germany was reluctant towards the F35 was the fact that it has only one engine. May sound strange, but this has been an issue since the Starfighter accident rate in the 1960s.
Don’t worry Trumpington has decided it’s going to get two engines, one presumes this is news to Lockheed who apparently were only considering a two seat version. Clearly confused the old deluded one, trouble is now in pure Emperor’s clothes meets Carry on Glamping no one dares correct him, the last two who expressed an opinion, Musk and Isaacman got their marching orders, the latter before he even got behind the desk.
The problem I have with the idea Trump will be gone is the other two recent nes were hardly pro British and as he has set the trend that all US woes (and the perceived woes are going to get progressively worse) this trend of anti everyone esp the pesky Europeans will fester and represent a large proportion of the electorate and ‘influencers’ and thus like Labour on Immigration both Parties will have to pay due lip service. While keeping them onside is an important effort I don’t think we can expect to be able to rely on them in the future and thus do so only as we actively with others move fundamentally away from relying on them wherever possible. Will probably take a good twenty years mind in some very important areas.
Starfighter was a dog of note Mike-not just down to the fact that it only had one engine
Or we just get extra Typhoons, with new equipment along the road to GCAP, and develop an actual standoff weapon for nuclear delivery.
No new aircraft fleets, no loss of sovereign decision making and no more reliance on Washington.
We can’t reach Russia from our own bases using F35 and Tempest will be a much more suitable platform in the long term.
Assuming limited budgets, the best we could hope for is 14 new F-35B to replace early lots too difficult/expensive to upgrade. Plus 14 tranche 4 Typhoon to keep combat aircraft building skills going until Tempest. If & I doubt it, there was spare money on top, then a single squadron (74sqn) of F-35A to use weapons that only it can use, could be justified.
I agree. New F35Aswould be an odd choice for limited funds. Replacement orders to maintain fleet numbers and upgrades (ECRS) seem more sensible (failing a big fiscal uplift).
Mention was made of new air & drone defence, additional AWACs and more long range missiles and that may have been the sop to RAF concerns about an expansion in jet numbers (along with the ‘jam tomorrow’ that is Tempest).
Oh and more drones/CCAs!
Actually as ex-RN, I’m now wondering if the RAF didn’t get too much. We could have had 20 AUKUS if they hadn’t been so greedy! Lol.
Agree with you both, the F-35 is increasingly being seen as too short legged and the B especially so, but any A purchase should in reality be just enough to put fear into the Russian mindset so that they no longer just presume they can use low yield nukes knowing we won’t go strategic and that likely the US will see Europeans as expendable to its own bigger picture rather than go nuke of any nature. Trumps taco man persona stretches to always warning Putin it’s another two weeks before he retaliates so you can understand why they don’t take him seriously. His biggest fear inducing trait was his unpredictability but be it trade, but especially military action (at least against powerful bullies) Putin has progressively testing him to establish if that truly is something to fear. He now knows the answer methinks, give him just enough options to back down and taco man will inevitably do so however big he talks.
Personally, I’d prefer 111sqn!
Couldn’t agree more.
F-35A doesn’t have the all-aspect stealth to be a penetrating aircraft suitable for delivery of free-fall tactical nukes; it’d need the door kicking down before it could get far enough into enemy’s AD bubble to release against a realistic target.
Typhoon, with a stand-off weapon developed from the air-launched part of FC/ASW is a more sensible solution- and feeds far better into the drive towards Tempest, as you say.
Get the second batch of F-35B to enable carrier strike, they’ll need them given that Tempest won’t have a carrier-capable version. RAF gets new Tranche 4 (or 5?) Typhoons to tide them over until Tempest.
Oh, and I suppose we re-define out FAA and RAF based upon this!
That would fly totally in the face of the “integrated force” which is actually THE major structural change of the entire SDR (and frankly as someone who witnessed the run up to the last one inside MOD – can’t come too soon).
We basically need to stop thinking in terms of FAA asset or RAF asset. One joint command structure, one force generating structure delivering the capability required for the deployed commanders.
OK, fair enough, I’m not precious about FAA/RAF- I agree with you that a functionally more integrated force would be a good thing.
I was being flippant, but the core of what I mean to say is that I see no benefit in an F-35A buy; I just don’t see any long-term benefit in them, and this nuclear justification doesn’t change my view of that.
I get it mate – and actually on F35A I agree unless it is used in sufficient numbers to be a relevant fleet in its own right (and we’re probably talking about it growing the overall fleet. My understanding is that from an aircrew perspective, there is very little requirement to retrain between the two (with the obvious vertical stuff taken into account, but apparently that’s highly automated). So the difference is really in logistics.
What I’m confused about is that the 138 F35 buy was to sustain the fleet until retirement in 2069! So there would be an assumption on every single airframe being replaced at least once in that time. If you bring F35A into the mix, surely the total buy would need to be increased or we soldier on with 50 year old aircraft ?
A mate inside the RAF (Aircrew) said to me that when it comes to Red Flag, the only reason we still get invited is F35 – so as much as we love Typhoon, the capability is apparently way behind.
Hey mate, replying here because your most recent comment ran out of Reply options!
Very interesting info from your RAF mate there, not heard that before..! I’d only respectfully ask why all the other NATO nations get invited and bring their F-16s, Rafales, etc. to the party? It could easily be that we don’t send enough aircraft quantity-wise too, my understanding is that pilots and ready-aircraft are not in huge supply?
“What I’m confused about is that the 138 F35 buy was to sustain the fleet until retirement in 2069! So there would be an assumption on every single airframe being replaced at least once in that time. If you bring F35A into the mix, surely the total buy would need to be increased or we soldier on with 50 year old aircraft ?” Fair point, I hadn’t really considered that- but you’re right. OK, so the B-52 is still flying at 60. But I’d be truly surprised if F-35’s composites etc. have that kind of operational life. We would definitely need more than 138 if we wanted the two fleets, even if we were only replacing the oldest third of each type.
I’d also be mindful that I’m not sure when we would actually receive any F-35A. The project is behind on deliveries, and we’d be at the back of the queue unless we paid to jump ahead. By the time we receive enough for even IOC, and get our pilots cleared for nuclear delivery (of a free-fall nuke, of all things), how close are we going to be to Tempest’s in-service date of 2035-40?
The idea of relying on the USA for authorisation to use tactical nukes is stupid. If we do that then the F35A is the only way. Well done the US for cornering your own market.
Typhoon will not need to enter enemy air space if a stand-off weapon is used with our own warhead.
As an alternative/extra, a land launched weapon should be used.
The question is – can we find the targets without US assistance?
Yes Because any airborne nuclear deterrent will be a sub strategic system so any random high profile military base or industrial city will do.. its only purpose is so Russia knows we could respond to tactical nuclear weapons use against our forces with a sub strategic response.
I am of the opinion that these weapons are tactical in nature. The F35 is somewhat short legged for anything more and these are the weapons that I think are under discussion.
Hi Dave the difference between tactical and sub strategic is more in how you would use them.. a sub strategic weapon is simply a weapon you would use as part of your nuclear deterrent posture..it’s a warning and a last resort warning shot before you send the world into MAD, tactical weapons are weapons you would use on the battlefield to sculp the battlefield..
So basically you can drop the sub strategic weapon on any target of value.. because it’s all about the message not the impact.
As I said, I do not consider these as strategic in any way, sub or otherwise.
An F35 could fly from the UK all the way to kalingrade to drop a bomb.. if it had tanker support it could drop it on st Petersburg… it has the range to hit Russia that is what defines strategic or sub strategic.
I do wonder if the F35 would fly at altitude in that environment, I consider it unlikely. Stealth is not magic.
If it flew a more realistic profile its range would be less.
Question, these bombers destroyed by Ukraine – was that a strategic strike? Or just tactical against dispersed targets?
Strategic by its nature.. but it was unusual in that it was a strategic strike made by essentially tactical assets that were enabled to be strategic assets by political warfare methods. So I would call it strategic sabotage using tactical drones..
What it shows is that strategic weapons are changing, becoming more varied and are probably available to even non state actors.. remember cyber can essentially be a strategic weapon..if you use it to attack another nations power grid it’s strategic and anyone can put a drone in a container.
If your attacking or degrading something on a specific battlefield it’s tactical, if on the otherhand your attacking a nations ability to fight the war its strategic.. which does mean many weapon systems can be both tactical or strategic, depending on the target and how you use them.. if a SSN attacks another SSN with a torpedo it’s being used as a tactical platform..if it’s using that same torpedo to kill merchant ships and shut down a sealane or launch a tomahawk strike against a port it’s being used as a strategic weapon….and some pure tactical weapon systems can become strategic with the correct enablers..
so those drones were a classic tactical weapon that with the correct enabler ( shipping containers and a political warfare operation to subvert Russian own logistic infrastructure) become a strategic weapon.. which is something that every nation is now going to worry about.. Israel has also been doing similar to this on the QT..dropping tactical drones off the back of transport aircraft to attack shipping in the Mediterranean.
It’s one of the reasons that aircraft carriers and a big fleet of tanker aircraft are so important..as they both turn a tactical fighter into a strategic weapon..
The RN SHAR’s had such a roll with our own free fall nuc’s and those drawings are still there so we could easily manufacture a few of those and then the UK asks no one when they can and cannot be used. The FAA fixed wing can again use such. Fitting a Dumb bomb which is what it is is relatively simple maths for us today for fit to either of our fast jets. Small money in the price of things. Such missions will as they wer expected in the past one way trips with little chance of getting back home. Its the real World truth.
Agree, any target would do, more obscure the better in many ways. If we ever used the thing it’s more likely we would glass some trees than a city.
It would be a very different role to France’s sub strategic weapons.
Some of the specific equipment suggestions in a generally vague review are frankly a bit odd.
Long range missiles from the decks of an aircraft carrier.
Replace T45 with a cheaper missile barge.
Buy F35A primarily to drop US supplied and controlled gravity bombs whilst spending £15b on developing our own new warheads. That is, combine a high maintenance, unreliable US aircraft with an outdated free fall nuclear bomb, also supplied by a country we can no longer trust.
Having now re read the SDR, I am even more struck by how bad it is, making the 2021 integrated review read like literature.
A simple identification of the threats we face and what we need to do to defeat them would have been much more useful, especially if the government wants to get greater buy in from the population.
As it is, the review simply provides a smokescreen for a government that will not commit the additional resources to achieve what it claims it wants to do.
‘A simple identification of the threats we face and what we need to do to defeat them would have been much more useful, especially if the government wants to get greater buy in from the population.’
That is literally what the review does. Please reread it.
‘Replace T45 with a cheaper missile barge.’
It didn’t recommend this. It stated that the government should explore a minimally crewed or unmanned vessel to supplement part of the Type 45’s role. That reads very much like the missile barges intended to accompany future destroyers that were mentioned by the RN and BAE is their discussion with Navy Lookout about the Type 83. The Type 45 will not be replaced by a a missile barge.
Yes, it was also mentioned as part of uk homeland missile defence.
Makes a lot of sense on a small island.
Yes it does. 8 x T 83 plus 8 or even more barges?
8 is a bit of a strange number, given the RN’s rule-of-3.
Suspect the carrier launched deep strike concept would be a S.T.O. winged turbo jet UAV concept with long legs.
I tend to agree, as I stated elsewhere it’s the only concept whereby a carrier is a better and more potent launch platform (platform generally) than a frigate, destroyer or new wave hybrid vessel.
Or it could be FCASW launched by F35B
Hopefully it’ll fit in the internal bays, but I suspect it may not…
Replying to you here due to comment limit further down, on the subject of F-35 penetrating enemy airspace to drop free-fall bombs: It should also be remembered that it doesn’t have all aspect stealth- I’d be willing to bet that its RCS from the rear aspect and some rear/side quarters is actually pretty large (relatively speaking). Penetrating into enemy airspace, where detection radars may end up looking at the rear aspect of the aircraft, creates problems even before it opens its weapon bay doors…
I would still maintain, therefore, that Typhoon with a decent stand-off munition would be the better choice. Especially if we’re talking Russia as the adversary. If the Ukrainian airforce can (relatively) safely launch Storm Shadow from Su-24s against targets at a range corresponding to what we’d need for a tactical nuke (Safe Ukrainian airspace to Sevastopol or a bit further), then I think that a Typhoon T4 should be able to do the same, especially with EW provided by the new AESA mk2 and potentially even Spear EW and suchlike.
The missile barge as a replacement for T45 I’m reading as 6+ T83 run alongside T45 which will later be replaced with missile barges.
It’s an increase even if its an unconventional mix. Barges loaded with TLAM seem like an expensive target but something we can knock out in a hurry with cheaper missile options sounds like a decent plan, especially if targeting can be provided from any other platform. Lots more details needed with that one and everything else.
A T83 showing up to say hello would get anyone’s attention, A T83 and T31/32 showing up with half a dozen barges let’s them know it’s time they made peace with their deity of choice.
Once again, it feels like we have a government living in la la land.
At this point, why are we even talking about adding another extremely high-end, expensive capability? Have we learned nothing from the track record of niche, low-volume projects?
We already have perfectly viable options we could buy now: the F-35B, Typhoon, Type 26/31 frigates, Boxer with a gun, a new IFV program—or even fully committing to converting all our existing tanks. Instead of chasing yet another complex, costly dream, we should be focusing on bulking up and strengthening the capabilities we already have or are about to have.
Meanwhile, countries like Germany and Poland aren’t making noise about fielding a strategic nuclear deterrent—so why are we so intent on ticking every single high-end, complex capability box?
I’m honestly looking forward to the upcoming NATO meeting. I can imagine the scene now, each nation outlining how they’re strengthening their forces:
“We’re going to make our army ten times more lethal. And if we win the next election, we’ll aim for an eighteen-fold increase. Oh—and maybe a future government will actually commit to up to 12 SSB(A)s. Fingers crossed!”
It’s theatre. We need focus, commitment, and realism—not fantasy procurement shopping lists.
Everyone one Europe is talking about a European nuclear deterrent..the issue is only France and the UK have them and can under international law field them ( unless it’s under a dual key arrangement) Germany is buying F35A for the sole purpose of being able to use duel key freefall nuclear weapons.
Yes, but Germany isn’t talking or dreaming about acquiring SSBNs or building carrier strike groups. They’re not trying to tick every single high-end capability box.
If we’re truly “NATO first,” then why are we looking to purchase a small number of F-35As to deliver free-fall nuclear bombs? Other NATO countries already fulfil that role. Isnt the whole point of collective defence that not every nation has to do everything?
Instead of duplicating niche, ultra-expensive capabilities, we should be investing in what we actually need: more mass and more conventional firepower.
Chasing prestige projects and spreading ourselves thin does nothing for deterrence or readiness.
Ohh don’t get me wrong I don’t think F35A for free fall nuclear bombs is the correct way to go.. but I do think we need a sub strategic nuclear response.. because it’s in the Russian war book to drop a tactical nuclear weapon on our forces on the assumption we would not trigger MAD with a full strategic response.. so our present all or nothing nuclear deterrence is not totally fit for purpose.
Exactly as you say is the F-35A the right option however. Long range cruise or drone derived options might be better but in the end producing our own (or with the French) small warheads is the big dictator of what is possible within a budget and what form its delivery vehicle might take.
Hi Jonathan,
Ah, I see what you mean and agree with you about not pursuing the F-35A for this role.
As for exploring a different path for a sub-strategic nuclear response, I think it’s definitely something worth considering in the future if the defence budget is significantly increased. But for now, there are many other priorities that I think should come higher up the list.
Currently until GCAP comes along, we have very few options for an aircraft that could be purchased primarily to fulfil the nuclear strike role. It’s very unlikely that A, we could afford the B21, let alone B, the US allowing the aircraft to be exported. Which leaves the F35A (Both the B and C versions are not cleared to carry a nuke/B61) as the only viable Western made aircraft, that could be used to get through a peer enemy’s defences and hopefully return. Typhoon is not suited to this role, even when using a long range stand-off air launched cruise missile. It is too detectable by radar, where it could be intercepted before it gets into firing position. Additionally, it will require additional aircraft to “clear the road”, giving it an easier path to the target. The F35 could do most of the infiltration on its own. Though its mission would be greatly enhanced by using Spear-3/EW or MALD to clear and confuse enemy air defences along the route.
To my mind, it beggars belief that the F35A will be expected to deliver the B61, by performing either overflight bombing or using the toss bombing technique. Both options are from a bygone era, as the aircraft’s radar cross section (RCS) becomes fairly compromised as soon as you open the weapons bay. Thereby putting the aircraft at even more risk from air defences. Surely in this day and age, a JDAM style wing kit could be fitted? Thereby enabling the F35 to launch the weapon from a stand-off distance. It won’t require laser designation or fine GPS coordinates, as an inertial navigation system will be sufficient to get the weapon within 500m of the target, it is a nuke after all and pin point accuracy in this instance is not necessary!
Using a air launched cruise missile would be the better option, which will either have to be fairly small (JSM size) to fit in the internal weapon’s bay. Thereby maintaining the aircraft’s RCS, but also minimising drag. Or a larger longer ranged weapon is slung under the wing. Meaning the F35 can’t get as close to the target and you have to rely on the weapon to penetrate the enemy’s air defences.
The review very specifically states that other European countries pulling out of NPT would be bad for the longevity of the Human species which is why we have to do more.
I respect your perspective but we are an island nation and it does make sense to prioritise the navy and RAF. The govt is not living in la-la land as you put it. But the voters probably are. Divisive politics is still the order of the day. The population will have to re-learn that in war time everyone is expected to make sacrifices. The govts job is to make those as fair as possible. I do think the army is too small. The equipment plan is due out in the autumn. That’s when we find out whether we plan, for example, additional Boxer variants or to re-instate a WCSP lite or more CR3 or more aircraft. I think we can expect significant organisation changes too. My feeling is that we will build on what we have which is Ukraine proven e.g. say an extended range Storm Shadow.
Hi Paul
I do think the government is living in la la land at the moment. On one hand, they stress the urgency of the current threat landscape yet on the other, they “commit” to something like 12 SSN(A)s, which they can’t even commit to at this stage. If urgency is truly the priority, why not commit to something achievable in the short term?
This kind of ‘headline purchase’ might have landed well yesterday, but once opposition MPs and the media realise it’s essentially a meaningless statement—with no orders,no timeline confirmed, and delivery decades away – they’ll start criticising the announcement.
The government will end up wishing they had either committed to something tangible or said nothing at all.
As for the Command Paper, yes, it will provide more detail on procurement plans but by then, it will have been over a year since this review process began…
So far, there’s been no real urgency from HMG just the usual waffle. At a time when clarity and speed are needed.
Political reality means you have to look behind the govt messaging. They want to be re-elected so will not be truely frank about what is required – sacrifices. They will continue to preach the economic growth message and wrap this a patriotic wrapper – we will always act in the ‘national interest’ i.e. the common good. For what its worth I think the threat from Putin is what the country needs to come together in the face of recent divisive politics and what I regard as a deliberate attempt by greed and evil woke forces to undermine our identity, values and social cohesion.
So woke and non woke forces then.
I haven’t read the document but from comments above.bWhy the need for missile barges to compliment the T45? Why can’t they put mk41s or ExLS on the T45s for starters and up the CAMM counts across all T26/31/45s? And order 2-3 AAW type A140/T31s – surely this would be of more deployable use than just sidekick barges? Pending money and personnel issues.
Barges would be the way to go. Its a faster and cheaper way of increasing the number of VLS; it separates the radar detection platform from the independently mobile missile silo by what might be a significant distance, and FADS T83 networking could might enable many to many relationship between AA destroyers and barges; either of which could be coastal, which could be useful.
It’s mentioned in conjunction with UK missile defence. Why would you go to the expense and wait 10 years to put missiles on a frigate when a barge would do.
T45 can queue multiple weapons with the new kill web they outline.
Hi Quentin, the other SB here with a new name.
The argument in favour of missile barges is that they wouldn’t need as capable a hull as a T31. As we’ve seen, the current c.£300m cost is about the minimum that a frigate hull can be done for, but a simpler hull with just the VLS could be done for much less.
Additionally, use could be made of the smaller yards around the UK that can’t build full frigate hulls.
I’m honestly not sure about an F35A buy to be honest..
First off we really should have a min of 3 f35b squadrons ( about 60 airframes ) and better 4 squadrons ( 75-80 airframes). So first we should be buying another 25-30 F35Bs before any F35As
Second off the F35A would require it’s one OCU which means it’s inefficient from the numbers purchased vs front line squadrons compared to an aircraft we already have.. so just to get 1 squadron we would need 30 jets but 15 f35b or typhoons would give an extra squadron.
Third we will be down to 96 single seat typhoons soon and that is inadequate to keep the squadrons we have running.. so we need another 20-30 of those..
I’m not sure buying 30 f35A so we can have one squadron that can drop duel keyed US nuclear weapons is worth the money..
As an immediate response, forward based Typhoons with a Storm Shadow ER version would good; which suggests a Typhoon buy. If we want a truely credible European tactical nuclear umbrella which is not dependent on US stealth delivery then the French ASMP or its successor looks like the only game in town until Tempest.
Completely agree, I would see if we could get in on the new French air launched missile for tempest and in the mean time see if ASMP can be integrated into typhoon at all.
By far the most pragmatic and sensible comment to date. It simply doesn’t make sense to purchase the F35A which will take a very long time to build and deliver to us. Far better ROI is to look at what can be delivered and used on Typhoon and then concurrently factor whatever is up and coming for GCAP.
Seems logical to me. The F-35 is increasingly seen as too short range with tankers increasingly vulnerable so to me bulking up Typhoon getting new airframes which might be able to incorporate and stress test certain technologies being developed for Tempest and going for a stand off nuke weapon is likely a better bet than F-35A which will take ages to get hold of anyway. Such a development would likely ease a transition to early Tempests to take over the role too which F-35 with freefall bombs will not. Seems like a dead end choice but in the end costs and timescale may dictate and we aren’t privy to that.
We might be forced into a political buy of F-35A to keep Trump onside – reduced tariffs on UK products – say replace the 2 US squadrons at Lakenheath. I’m sure the RAF will be salivating. We should absolutely defend Tempest; we don’t want to see an action replay of TSR2 and F-111. The US defence manufacturers know Tempest will be world class. It looks like we have already committed to a NATO increase of spending to 3.5% by 2035. The summit is later in June. The expensive and uncosted equipment plan required in the SDR is due in the autumn. Have to say the govt have played their hand quite well. In light of the NATO target after the NATO summit and before the equipment plan, Ms Reeves will announce a change in policy, raise taxes and blame NATO – brilliant. Autumn should see a decent equipment plan.
Don’t like the idea of sharing with the US for the nuclear strike option – we already depend on them for missile maintenance for Trident, would much prefer linking with France or going independent. I suspect we are going to get some F35As though… Tempest needs some kind of niuclear capability from the start. I admit I don’t like the free fall idea either – something with a stand off capability would be a lot better…
If I were the UK I would give the USA a wide berth. Deterrence is key and mobile intermediate ballistic missiles with nuclear capability would decidedly add to our deterrence factor. Surely our Trident submarines are capable of sub strategic, even tactical nuclear missile delivery?
Surely it would make much more sense to develop a totally independent stand off nuclear missile that could be launched by Typhoon or any future UK aircraft. Any situation in which the US is in favour of using tactical nukes it isn’t as if there will be a shortage of them. The real benefit of an independent system is that it gives the enemy more things to consider, currently they must only judge if the US or France would respond with anything less than a full ballistic missile exchange, with an independent system they then have to also consider when the UK would respond with tactical weapons. Any option that relies on US permission eliminates this consideration.
An independent system would also allow the option of sharing from our end if the UK government decides to do so, with the recent unreliability of the US commitment to anything and its future commitment unknowable the option to supply countries like Germany or Poland British tactical nuclear weapons for a different authorisation chain for Russia to think about should not be carelessly thrown away.
What if this were not dual key? What if we are talking about Britain buying the bombs and having sovereign control? There you go, says America. $40m a pop, “mate’s rates”. Fill yer boots. We buy 50. That’s $2bn. Maybe 12 F-35As? Another £1bn, perhaps. What are the extra costs (excluding any scope creep for the RAF getting F-35A for other reasons)?
This would be a complete violation of the NPT, both UK and USA would have to leave leading to global proliferation.
Having read the SDR again today, it strikes me as being a classic ‘Sir Humphrey’. Everything and nothing; read into it whatever you want.
To me, Starmer’s sad little presentation yesterday and the nonsense that followed in Parliament is an indication that Labour don’t get what being in power means. It goes along with ‘stop the boats’ and all the other platitudes as something simply to hog the headlines for another 24 hours. Next week there will be another ‘important announcement’ about something else. Another headline, another aspiration. When the wheel stops spinning we all fall off.
Still, it keeps UKDJ in business printing all our varied comments and opinions, so thank you SDR for that! Now, about this Autumn’s Defence White Paper…
Where would this procurement leave the Tempest Development? What additional capability would Tempest then give us for the vast sums involved.
The Americans would much rather us not develop our own aircraft and will do all they can to undermine that independence as they did with TSR2.
We only have to look at how long UK weapons integration is taking on F35B for an insight into how that works .
I suggest any adequate F35A purchase would either undermine the effectiveness of the carriers (if they replace F35B procurement) and/or put Tempest into doubt if they are an additional purchase – and America wins both ways.
America First don’t forget – as it was as it shall ever be.
I appreciate your reply Jim. When it comes to the F35A chat, I’m not sure if that would be correct to buy or not. Just saying if they did, could be a smaller order. Will see how future relations go with our pal’s across the pond. What ever happens I believe the reform and extra spending when it comes to our western/Eastern European allied militaries must be done and hopefully carried out. Fingers crossed.
I haven’t finished reading the SDR yet but the comments here and the earlier article about the carriers being equipped with long range missiles raise a bunch of issues and have got me thinking.
Firstly, the carriers. Putting long range missiles on them seems to be a daft idea, an act of desperation, but why? We know that the UK has been in discussions with the US for another buy of F-36B for sometime. These talks are clearly dragging on so there must be an issue. We have always thought that it was about the lack of UK weapons integration but what if the latest news from the USMC and the implications for future F-35B costs have added an additional layer of doubt and cost. The US was not going to develop the engine for the B variant from the start of the upgrade discussions, which along with the software issues and reduced USMC buy suggests that US is looking to drop the STOVL B variant, but won’t come out and say it as they might be on some contractual hook or other..! Especially to the UK, so they just make it really really expensive and difficult for us…
So if the issue is with the B variant and we want to stay in the stealth business the A variant is the way to go, but we clearly do not want to put Tempest on the line, so a small buy for a niche role to justify the stealth capability..? May be, but expensive. Worse I smell a TSR2 / F111 deal here kind of situation developing here. The US want GCAP / Tempest gone and are pressuring Japan to pull out as well.
Trying to keep the US integrated into NATO is a strategic UK goal, always has been, so hopefully we offering to buy some F-35A and free fall nuclear weapons as a way of keeping them sweet. If we can slip in a few more F-35B as for a reasonable price as part of the deal then compromise might be worth it if it allows us to maintain the UK Carrier Strike capability as is for the medium term at least. However, it will be time limited because the B variant appears to be dropping out of the future development plane for the F-35. So we will have to develop alternatives to maintain UK Carrier Strike which is vital to eNATO given the increasingly unreliability of the US.
As for the missiles on the carriers there is an article on War Zone about the QinetiQ Jackdaw drone which is a development of the Banshee. There is a picture of Jackdaws on rails arranged on the QEC deck next to the Ski Ramp. The Jackdaw is a disposable drone but looks too small to be really effective, the payload is only 30kg compared to Storm Shadow’s 450kg. Nevertheless a low priced dual role disposable drone concept might fit the ‘long range missile’ bill and could be part of the ‘thinking out of the box’ that I suspect the RN / MoD are having to undertake if the F-35B really is being squeezed out by the US.
Long term, we will need to come up with a solution to the air wing problem for carrier strike or 20 to 30 years of effort and investment will be lost and the UK and Europe will be severely weakened. This might be the point if the US is trying to impose dominance over Europe to ensure its’ sphere of influence’ in the new multi-polar world. In the medium term if we accept a single squadron of F-35B supported by a mix of high low drones for each carrier with the manned aircraft acting as the controller of the drone strike package and accepting that the F-35B stays well away from the threat area we might be able to eke out the live of the F-35B airframes. We could maintain and develop the manned fighter’s self / air defence and networking capabilities and put all of the strike capabilities into UK develop drones. I read an article somewhere recently that explained that having a man in the loop forward with the strike package greatly improved the security of the package, making it harder for an enemy to get between the controller and drones to jam or spoof the network, for example. So F-35B would be good in this limited role for the UK. It would be a compromise but might work.
Just for the record having another key weapon system that we are reliant on the US for does not sit well. TSR2 should have taught us that 50 plus years ago, but we are where we are and for the time being we need to keep the US on side, but at the same time we need to disentangle our supply chains. It will take time, but it needs to happen. Europe and the UK need to step up to safe guard our national freedoms.
Tempest must go ahead, and I would develop a air launch ballistic missile to go with it… (ballistic to avoid any doubt about warheads).
Cheers CR
Buy 13 more F35B only instead of 27 to save money.
Gives us 60 aircraft. I could accept that if the saving is put into another aircraft buy.
Then buy Typhoons Instead.
Hybrid Air Wing of F35, Merlin, UCAV, long range strike Drones.
Hi Daniele,
Yeh, nice short to medium term buy. Then I would pile into Tempest and develop a ballistic missile for it and hand the US B61’s back with a nice little thank you note attached. Get the air launched ballistic missile right and you can fit it to a drone if you need to, so the QEC could be so equipped if we needed it… Such it the way the world is going. Deterrence is what it is all about now. eNATO and may be Canada will need some serious fire power if we are to maintain our independence.
This SDR is probably the best one in my life – not that the bar was set very high mind.
Now we wait for the spending review..?
Cheers CR
The answer as you say is to order more F35B’s and give them all to the Navy. Then because we are going to be Eurolands premier Naval Power we should only next buy F35C’s. These can be part of the Joint Force. Is what this means is the RAF continues to be involved in Naval Aviation for support and Training but by flying F35C’s allows us to cross operate on French and US Carriers if need be.
The issue with both the B and C variants of the F35, are that neither of them are cleared to carry nuclear weapons. This is the prerogative of the F35A. As it’s seen as the USAFs means of providing interdiction, i.e. the prevention of enemy logistics and reserve forces linking up with the front line forces, by using a low yield nuclear weapon. For us, this role was carried out by the Tornado, which after its retirement was supposed to be replaced by the F35A. However, as we now had the additional carriers and Harrier was no longer viable, the F35B was the only option, unless BAe went ahead alone with a evolution of the P1216 (Which at that time was definitely not stealthy). The option for the B variant was made easier, as we had dropped the nuclear interdiction role with the retirement of WE177. Additionally, the cost of implementing an EMALS system on to the then in-design carriers was seen as too prohibitively high, which meant no F35Cs.
Thank you for this reminder of the concept of ‘interdiction’ which is not the same as the French doctrine of ‘tear off an arm’ with ASMP. The SDR does make reference to Russian rebuilding of its nuclear arsenal including tactical warheads which would be used ‘to terminate a conflict on advantageous terms’. Russia believes NATO would not want to escalate to a strike on Russia, neither would we want to inflict further nuclear damage on European soil so the SDR is hinting that we do still need that interdiction role. I guess the question is could it be done with the proposed conventional 2000km Anglo-German missile or do we need F-35A and B61.
Hi CR, I am really hoping you are incorrect on the future growth of the F35B. Especially now there are number of Countries that have put their faith and money in to purchasing the aircraft, such as the UK, Japan, Italy, Singapore and possibly South Korea. Admittedly these export orders of around 150 aircraft so far, pales against the USMC’s requirement for 280. But if the LM does not develop the F35B, these Countries will be significantly pi**ed off with the US (again)!
My thoughts are that the USMC cannot do without the F35B, if its expected to provide close air support and interdiction missions for amphibious operations. The few remaining legacy Harriers will not be able to survive in a peer vs peer conflict, besides the Harriers are now being retired in favour of the F35B. The USMC are currently replacing all their legacy Hornets with F35Cs (with 140 planned aircraft). Which will predominantly be operated from the large USN carriers (Nimitzs’ and Fords). If they binned the F35B, this would reduce the USMC’s fixed wing combat air power by 2/3. I don’t see the USN adding to the planned carrier numbers just to operate additional USMC F35Cs. It will cost too much and take too long, even with the US’s massive budget. The USMC require a fixed wing platform that can operate from their LHDs. At the moment only the F35B can meet these requirements.
The biggest issue with the F35B is its P&W F135-600 engine. A big part of the engine’s design was to use the turbofan’s bypass air for avionics cooling. However as the avionics was being updated, the calculated air requirements were incorrect. So for technology refresh 3 (TR3) the engine has to run hotter to pull in more air. However, running the engine hotter has led to significantly reducing the engine’s life. Where inspections found that turbine blades suffered from microfractures and the heat protective coating was flaking off. Doing prolonged vertical hovering and landings has also not helped. The F135-100 used in the F35A and C, has seen similar problems, though not to the same extent!
P&W had a roadmap for increasing the power and efficiency of the engine, which would have gone hand in hand with producing more cooling air for the avionics. Due to the issues they found, they have had to introduce these modifications earlier than planned. These modifications were originally intended to deal with the demand that technology refresh 4 (TR4) would have required. The question does need asking though, has P&W again underestimated the cooling demand placed on the engine?
Additionally, the F135 was going to be replaced by the future adaptive engine (GE XA100 or P&W XA101). But the Project Office has now shelved this idea, I believe on cost grounds, instead going for further F135 upgrades. I guess they have been assured by LM, that the engine’s growth can keep in step with the avionics cooling demand.
It could be a typically British token effort.
Buy 8 F35A, base and integrate with the USAF F35A at Lakenheath where B61 will be based anyway.
Then rotate 2 airframes and crew every now and then into the German, Dutch and Italian F35s or 16s at their bases.
We can triumph an expansion of the umbrella and support of allies blah blah blah.
Actually that is not such a bad idea in the short to medium term. We send a signal to the CRINK axis and to Washington as well…
In the longer term we could / should develop an air launched ballistic missile for fitting to the long ranged Tempest or, more likely, one of the attendant drones in the strike package. The missile wouldn’t need to be hugely long ranged, nor insanely accurate even with a low yield warhead because the drone could be attritable in effect creating a horizontal two stage ballistic system. I would use a ballistic missile (second stage) and reserve the low level terrain following cruise missiles for conventional warheads to avoid accidental nuclear escalation…
Cheers CR
As the old saying goes, ‘America looks after it’s own’.
Europe should do the same.
We are not in Europe or America, we are constantly getting involved into wars that other countries need to get dirty with first.
We are in Europe actually, have been for a few trillion years. We are not in the EU but that is not that relevant, as its not a defence organisation. What we are in, and what our security depends on. Is NATO Europe.
As a small island with a medium-scale economy and limited defence budget, we are not very well pla Ed to go it alone on defence. The old insular and Empire mindset, so irrelevant in the 221st Century, is still proving hard for many to shake off!
‘placed’ and ’21st Century’
We are the 5th or 6th largest economy in the world. Nothing medium about it. Political choices stop our defence budget being up to the job rather than the depth of our pockets.
The EU is not Europe.
I voted to leave the EU, but I’m very proud to be a European.
There is a big difference.
RAF Trojan horse to undermine carrier strike.
Buy F-35A’s for nuclear then “discover” nukes are too expensive to operate.
So sad ro see that we are having to even discuss obtaining tactical nukes.
The heady days of START, withdrawing uk tactical nukes and the peace dividends appear far behind us.
I do hope however that, as in times gone by, we are not talking ourselves into conflict.
I think those that were in power in the Soviet Union were slightly more rational, than the lot currently sitting in the Kremlin! I’m sure if the leader of Russia and his enclave were more level headed, perhaps we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Sadly however, you can’t rationalize with bullies if you have nothing to back it up!
Don’t forget Xi’s China. Russia is overtly dangerous put it keeps telegraphing it’s [current] nature. China is being far less obvious to all but closer inspection of their actions. So unless you happen to live in the Far East / South China Sea region or the US most have not noticed the true threat China is posing.
The US shift in focus to the Far East is in many way entirely justified, its just the manner in which they are doing it that is so destabilising! Although, the kick in the pants that they have given Europe was also justified I would say and it appears to be working…
Cheers CR
When the UK became a Tier 1 partner in the F-35 Lightning II programme, we committed to purchasing 138 F-35s. So why don’t we buy a total of 60 F-35Bs for the two carriers and 78 or more F-35As for the RAF to use as part of NATO’s tactical nuclear deterrent capability.
We should order F35C’s not F35A’s. We are a maritime nation and may shortly need to convert the carriers to CATOBAR. The RAF have experience on board our Carriers, so this shouldn’t be a problem. If it is, someone needs to knock heads together,
The trouble with buying the F35C is its a bit too niche, compared to the ‘A’ it has proved to be slightly sluggish in performance due to the bigger wing area because of drag. The advantages are we can Refuel them with Voyager as is, and their low speed handling characteristics would make them ideally suited to dispersed operations.
Does the RAF currently still routinely store it’s jets in hardened shelters as it used to during the cold war or has it adopted the cheaper option like a number of other countries such as the US and, to it’s expense this week, Russia of storing them regularly in the open?
There has been a lot of news stories showing former cold war aircraft shelters in Russia and the US, with a number noting they are often to small to use with modern planes which is why they were abandoned in the first place.
Both.
OCU’s tend to use the flight line.
And frontline Sqns if HAS numbers are limited. RAF Lossimouth has only 2 HAS complexes, for example. HAS complexes from memory had 9 or more shelters.
I recall RAF HAS could store 2 Tornado if needed.
And we have MANY HAS on airfields which no longer have fast jets, which I can list if you need.
Daft question from an obscure MP who has an even dafter name.
As an ex Army officer who has served in the ME, he can have as daft a name as he likes!
I’m not adverse to the RAF getting another variant of the F35S, but at the expense of us hitting what I consider to be the optimal number of F35B, which I think think is 94 in order to fully service the two QEC’s.
My question therefore, is the A variant the most appropriate option for the RAF? Keeping in mind that we might yet convert the QEC’S to EMAL sometime in their service life, would the C variant be a sensible hedge? Is there a significant capability to gap between the two when operated from land?
If we go for the A variant, then I would be arguing for no more than a enough for two frontline sqns and would order another two frontline sqns of Typhoon, both of which would be a stop gap until GCAP comes online.
According to my AI source the minimum sub strategic nuclear load for our Trident submarines are 0.3 kilotonnes which could also serve as a tactical weapon. This would obviate the need for the UK to buy hugely expensive American figjter jets with all that it entails.
Tactical Trident isn’t a good idea.
If we lobbed one at Russia, will the PM be ringing them to not retaliate with full fat MIRVs because ours is only 0.3 kt?
They’d not know, they’d only see the launch and get their football out.
I assume the Dead Hand doesn’t do singletons, but leadership decapitations, but who’s to say it doesn’t automatically fire several back?
I’d also not want the position of a strategic asset like our bomber negated for a tactical payload.
Buy the F35A, continue F35B purchase, build our own tactical nuclear device to integrate on Typhoon and Tempest. End up with a high low mix of Gen 5 and 6.
This depends entirely on weapons integration, if we can’t launch everything we want from the F35 then skip the A and carry on with Typhoon as part of a high/very high/sci-fi mix of Gen 4.5, 5 & 6.
If we can’t speed LM up on integration after they’ve lost out on USA Gen 6 while waving a potential order of 100 aircraft in their faces then to hell with them.
Total waste of money EU and effort
F35 is a total white elephant,not agile and not stealthy.
It’s looking white hot in Iran. Total air defense knock out by the IDF.
I think the RAF are looking at operating a mixed fleet of F35 A/B and Tempest/GCAP and phasing out the Typhoons altogether
Once you’re using nukes it seems beyond desperate to me. So why are we investing in tac nukes when any nuke use triggers MAD? We already have Trident as our national strategic fail safe. Some F35As for the RAF give better deep stealth strike, so long as it doesn’t undermine the F35B program & cut surge capabilities which in these dangerous & uncertain times is vital to maintain. Even as a very small attrition reserve we need all the F35Bs we can get. Can we really trust more investment in the USA with wild card nutter Trump/MAGA in charge?
Wouldn’t F35As be unnecessary with Tempest in the pipeline?
People are missing the point. The UK’s purchase of F-35As is fundamentally about securing a launch platform for new tactical nuclear weapons. European nations can no longer rely on the U.S. tactical umbrella as they once did. The UK decommissioned its WE.177A nuclear bombs in the late 1990s—I was involved in that process. Now, NATO’s tactical nuclear capability is primarily dependent on American assets, with limited French contributions that may or may not factor into future operations.
The Trump administration severely undermined NATO’s deterrence posture, despite reassuring rhetoric from European governments and NATO itself. The UK government recognizes this shift and is taking steps accordingly.
As long as we have plenty B’s for the carriers then yeah bring in A’s it makes sense.