According to The Sunday Times, air-launched nuclear capabilities could soon be returning to the Royal Air Force.
Britain is exploring the potential return of air-delivered nuclear weapons, in what officials are describing as a response to a “new era of threat” posed by Russia.
According to an exclusive report in The Sunday Times link here, discussions are underway between the UK and US regarding the acquisition of F-35A Lightning II aircraft capable of carrying tactical gravity nuclear bombs.
The proposal—said to be the most significant shift in the UK’s nuclear posture since the end of the Cold War—has the backing of Defence Secretary John Healey and Chief of the Defence Staff Admiral Sir Tony Radakin. Prime Minister Keir Starmer is also understood to support the option, which forms part of the wider Strategic Defence Review to be announced on Monday.
At present, the UK’s nuclear deterrent relies solely on the Trident submarine-based system. Introducing air-launched capabilities would diversify delivery options and align Britain more closely with NATO allies such as the United States, which maintains land, sea, and air-based nuclear platforms.
Speaking to The Times, Healey warned that “the world is definitely becoming more dangerous,” adding that “nuclear risks are rising” and that for the first time in a generation, “we face seriously increasing risks of state-on-state conflict.”
It is understood that the UK government is weighing the benefits of lower-yield, air-delivered nuclear weapons as a potential deterrent response to Russia’s escalatory threats. Tactical nuclear systems would, in theory, provide a flexible option for NATO, offering the ability to respond decisively to a limited nuclear strike without immediate escalation to strategic-level retaliation.
The American-made F-35A variant is designed to carry B61 gravity bombs—a type of low-yield, air-dropped nuclear munition already integrated into US and some NATO air forces. Germany, for instance, recently committed to acquiring the platform for similar nuclear-sharing purposes under NATO’s deterrence umbrella.
Although the Strategic Defence Review is not expected to commit explicitly to air-launched nuclear systems, it will recommend enhancing the UK’s contribution to NATO’s shared deterrent and maintaining industrial readiness for rearmament.
So the RAF may get the F35A? That’s great providing we also commit to a second batch of F35Bs! It’s about time we upped our game and being able to deliver tactical nukes is one example of where we can step up . Next, order 5 more Type 31s and fit sonar and mk41vls to Type 31 as a priority with weapons to match, plus at least 2 more Type 26, 6 more P8s and up the E7 order to 5, the last is endless.
I think us getting the F35A is a great move, it can serve primarily as a Tornado replacement. There was talk of us quirking up to 100 which would put the RAF as the premier airforce in Europe and easily able to over power the Russian airforce.
However putting nukes on F35A is a massive mistake. We either go B61 and have yet another weapon system beholden to the USA or we develop our own air launched bomb and it takes Lockheed Martin 10 years to integrate it.
We should do a storm shadow derived low yield nuclear weapon that any typhoon in Europe can operate.
* Picking up to 100
I prefer “quirking”.
I was about to disagree with you Jim but your final point makes perfect sense if we can pull it off. My only concern is how difficult and costly would it be to produce warheads of this nature. I presume we have no experience o research going back decades. Indeed I read that development of similar warheads for Blue Steel were abandoned in favour of an anglicised US warhead which tends to suggest such a move is no easy or cheap matter even then. So maybe we would need to use a US warhead now which could put us back into the beholden argument. Any French options?
The French option implies getting rafales and frankly, seeing uk buying more and more US equipement probably anihilates any collaboration with France in the near future on that topic.
I would have thought the French ASMP warhead would be of a size that could fit inside a storm shadow. Given the concerns about over- reliance on the US, opting for the B61 seems like piling more eggs in the same basket.
Frankly we should look to partner with the French on their replacement on 50/50 cost and full tech share, probably not on offer though, and we know the French wouldn’t be able to not ruin any agreement like they have with so many other collaborations.
I think if we want to restore mass to the RAF, then creating 4 F35A squadrons is the way to go.
A buy of 90, plus the additional 27 B models (for an additional B squadron), would fit the bill, perhaps bringing upgrading and using Leeming or perhaps Leuchars?
We should be working towards an RAF 2040 fleet mix of 8 Tempest and 4 F35A Squadrons, in a High/Mid mix.
It would….but it would surely mean the end of Tempest.
I don’t think so Daniele, that now firmly committed to. I do think we do need somthing in the fast jet fleet now, that’s more capable and survivable than Typhoon and crucially, already has a nuclear store avaliable.
In an ideal world, we would have another batch of Thypoon too, but, if we order 80/90 F35A, and upgrade all surviving Tranche 2/3 Thypoons to Tranche 4 standard, with all the bells and whistles. We can keep Warton busy and rebuild are fast air capacity relatively quickly.
We will obviously need to spend a fair wedge of folding money recommissioning and upgrading Leeming etc and increasing personal etc, but if the money and will is there, then it’s doable.
We absolutely require an additional batch of B models to create a third squadron and they should all be FAA owned and operated too.
I fully expect the government to commit to 3.5% on defence within the next few years, I really don’t see any other choice now.
There a plenty of airfield under care and maintenance with Leeming still be operational and Leuchers so being a standby airfield with the faciities needed to support warplanes. The cost would be small compared to the purchase of the actual aircraft. The UK can also have its’s own version of a tac nuc, we had a few before and would more than equal what the USA has to offer.
The threat is imminent and mass is needed now?
Agreed. I’d also want GCAP to succeed though, I cannot see how we buy both?
Even if talk of ordering A models is true how long would it take for our batch of As to roll off the production line and be stood up to, even IOC standard, 4 years? We won’t get any significant up-scale for some time. I’m with you rmj, we need a larger capability NOW but, as Danielle says, I believe it will undermine GCAP, if we are not careful.
A F35A order would absolutely soak up the bulk of Tempest funds for the next 10 years. I’ve read that the F35B mission bay is also large enough for the B61-12 bomb, which would make a lot more sense.
Its smaller than a 1000lb bomb as was the UK own tac bomb so should fit within the F35B bays would mean the RN regains that role too. Remember these are still dumb bombs so is the relatively simple lay down calculations needed to hit a target.
I wouldn’t get your hopes up the SDSR is going to announce such orders.
Orders / outputs are to announced in the autumn according to the permanent secretary of defence.
So the usual waffle tomorrow then….with the cuts, extras drip fed down the line when no one notices?
How did you know?
It was supposed to be a big secret?
That’s sort of Ok as long as they actually make the orders and outputs in the autumn and it’s not next year or the year after.
You are quite right Robert, the statement overall indicates talks. We all know where ‘talks’ lead to.
You’ve pretty much nailed the most urgent priority list there. Agree entirely. Maritime focussed armed forces.
I’m happy if the RAF gets their F35As they’ve been badgering everyone for them since day one.
Just as long as another batch of 27-36 more F35Bs are ordered for equipping both carriers, otherwise inadequate numbers to fully utilise the carriers.
Exactly.
I disagree.
What aircraft will survive to drop gravity bombs?
Why the F35, these are not going to be US weapons?
In fact, the US will not let us use our own nukes on F35s.
It is stupid to consider that they will.
As for the F35Bs, give them all to the Royal Naval Air Service, eradicate RAF interference in naval air.
Amen
Agree. But a big extra budget is needed for that to be so.
The RN FAA does not have the cash, infrastructure or people to operate a fleet of F35B itself, with so many ships needing funding. Which is why so much is RAF.
The RAF would not give up Marham, so just making that a RNAS for is not an option. Besides, all Lightning support orgs are there so with any F35A buy it is staying RAF. RNAS Yeovilton has no HAS or other facilities for fast jets beyond a reported small QRA set up post 9/11 for detached Typhoon.
So you’re looking at a big infra cost making them all FAA assets, unless you’re keeping FAA jets on RAF airfields with RAF support.
@ Daniele also RNAS Yeovilton is full to the brim, it’s utter packed
FAA have
Wildcat maritime force with 2 aircraft squadrons ( x2 wildcat )
Flight training squadron (T1)
Fighter control school
Aircraft control school
Underwater escape training unit
Commando helicopter force with 3 squadrons ( 2 Merlin 1 wildcat)
Joint aviation command with 1 army regiment of 3 squadrons ( 3 wildcats)
REME battalion
A NATO staff
That’s 9 squadrons of aircraft + 3 schools + a load of command staff..the have built more and more onto that base.
Hi J!
Indeed, largest by number of aviation assets stationed in one place I believe.
I concur with that list, I have them all noted save for a REME Battalion??? Assume you mean 7 REME, which is at Wattisham, but I recall has detached Sqns at Wallop/Yeovilton.
The NATO staff are the EW unit, and the FAA Historical Branch are there as well.
RNAS Yeovilton is full.
RNAS Culdrose is set up for Merlin, and I believe the runway not ideal.
So that leaves the cost of upgrading Mawgan, or somewhere else.
Considering they spent several hundred millions on upgrading Marham for F35, it isn’t happening.
Maybe more could be made of the HAS at Boscombe?
30 F35A instead of a further 30 F35B would be a neat solution. It gives the RAF two more squadrons plus a nuclear capability, and the FAA get to keep their three squadrons all for themselves.
The FAA should get all the F35Bs plus the other 24. The RAF should get F35A. We should work towards a sovereign airborne nuclear capability. We can make our own nukes and we did in the past I think both the Buccaneer and Tornado were capable of delivering nukes.
And Jaguar
Let the RAF have F35A , Fleet air arm F35B go back to when the services had they own identity .rather than a combined force .Go back to how it was the old saying if a Engine works leave it alone 👍
From the 1980’s the nuclear capable fixed wing aircraft were Tornado, Buccaneer, Jaguar, Harrier, Nimrod, plus the Vulcan could also be armed with the WE177. You could also technically include Sea King, Wessex and Lynx all be capable of dropping the low yield WE177 based depth charge.
And Wasp
Not enough F35B to generate 36 for CSG.
With 48 the number is limited to around 24…
@JB. So just to be clear; you are suggesting that the next 30 F-35s to be purchased would be the A model? After that we would continue to continue to increase B numbers such that a CSG could deploy with 36 F-35B.
Not necessarily the next straight 30 deliveries. Whatever combo of A and B fits in with delivery availabilities until the A gets to 30 and the B to 48. Some people don’t think 48 B’s is enough, but it’s enough to have one CSG of 36. If we ever get to needing two CSG at the same time then the stuff has hit the fan and 20 B’s each would be adequate especially when other B users (even the US marines) would be joining them – I don’t wear this ‘we must fight Russia alone’ thing.
As regards Tempest, just remember the even if the A’s take 4 years to deliver, that’s years earlier than even the first Tempest. If you want nuclear capable bombers quickly, then the A is the only show around. And anyway I have a hunch Tempest will be scrapped.
Thanks for clarifying. Money is tight so swapping some Bs for As would be the way to go. Just 2 squadrons is enough with one rotating / deploying to Eastern Europe if a taut political situation dictates. My sense of things is that we have agreed with France to extend ‘our’ ‘nuclear umbrella’ over Germany.
Having spent so much on the QEC, I support the second F35B buy, even slightly reduced, before any purchase of the A. 48 is not enough.
12 billion is allocated to Tempest development. Will there really be THAT much extra cash that some A can be bought as well??
Apparently so. Not that I trust the Sunday Times further than I can throw them, but if this is true, it seems that the cash uplift may indeed be coming. That’s in addition to the 7000 long-range weapons being procured, which would given the UK a stockpile almost twice as large as the current American stock of TLAM.
All 7000 will be spear 3 wont they? which is a light weight weapon without adequate range to ensure the aircraft launching them is out of harms way- Id much prefer storm shadow, tomahawk/ LRASM – for the Mk 41 VLS fits.
I’d bet that most will be Drones, but 7000 missiles and Drones, gives the impression missiles are in the ascendency, standard MoD spin. Delighted to be shown to be wrong with LRSM, FCASW and more SS buys.
Absolutely, a second match of F-35B to bring the fleet up to 72 before any talk of the A-model.
Personally, though, I’m against procuring any F-35A. The RAF will be getting Tempest (carrier strike will have to make do without a 6th Gen aircraft), and I’m sceptical of air delivered gravity tactical nukes- especially from F-35 which might be stealthy but is not designed as a deep penetrator.
I feel that Typhoon tranche 3 or 4 with all the latest AESA MK2 and suchlike is a better interim fit until Tempest, and they can stay in service while tranche 2 and older 3 are retired.
We’d be better getting nuclear warheads for FC/ASW and/or the Precision Strike Missile, which have a much better chance of penetrating to a suitable target than a free-fall gravity bomb…
Against having tactical nukes for uk , and may be used in future to erode having our deterrent at sea which has served us well. Anything f35 is software dependent on usa, war heads dependent on usa. Let’s not waste upturn in defence spending.
The F35B can carry tactical nukes as can Typhoon, every platform we have can!
The F35 can carry US nukes.
They will NEVER allow it to carry non-US nukes.
It doesn’t matter if they are UK or US nukes, they can still carry them, as was my point.
The Typhoon cannot carry US nukes.
They can carry British ones then
Your comment on the 5th, yes I would hope so.
The idea of waiting for a US President giving the OK seems ridiculous.
Why can’t Tornados anf F35Bs be adapted? I would be saying ‘not buying any more F35s until they can carry British munitions. Tornados – OK, not stealthy, but why not delop a tactical nuke that can be carried on a short range missile? Frankly, I think the defence industries are overstating the difficulties – more standardisation of parts s needed!
You mean Typhoon, not Tornado. The Tornado is nuclear-capable, but is no longer in service with the RAF.
Whoops 🙁
Save money, lease tonka’s from Germany based in Germany acting as uk tactical nuke force. But I still don’t agree with tactical for uk, we don’t need it.
I guess this would leave no room for extra Typhoon orders right? Is this the end of the warton production line since it’s unlikely we are gonna get more orders if our own air force doesn’t want anymore right?
Overseas Typhoon orders will keep the line open.
It’s a pity as the cash pot available doesn’t seem to be able to stretch to a small F35A order, for nuclear strike + F35Bs (another 27 at least) and then a newer batch of typhoon with the latest radar suite (24-36) to replace the tranche 1s being scrapped.
Not sure why all that can’t be done but I’m guessing all governmental budgets are being stretched due to huge sums for social security, benefits, triple lock pension and housing tens of thousands of illegal migrants. It’s all about priorities, the money is there just spent badly and in the wrong “zero net gain” areas.
Seems a shame to prioritise the American jet over the Typhoon, but if this purchase is simply for the purpose of quickly improving nuclear capability, the F-35A is the only option.
Still, a good decision (if true) and a nice sign of the government doing something, rather than simply talking about doing something, or simply talking about convening a committee to allocate funding to explore the possibility of putting a framework together to trial doing something…in 2035.
Agree, and I critique them endlessly there on that, I don’t trust any politician any further than I can toss them.
We shall see….and watch for the hidden cuts.
We’re all eagerly awaiting tomorrow’s SDSR results mate, some lively debate here tomorrow no doubt…
The DM are now saying that RAF Fast Jets will “carry nuclear weapons for the first time.”
For Goodness sake…..who are these journos and when will they get with their brief?
WE177 and the HAS vaults at Marham say hi. I assume they mean fast jets rather than older V bombers, as if not that is even worse.
Most of them don’t have the knowledge mate, it’s a quick Google before they write their articles…
Re a potential ‘A’ buy, they will absolutely need booms for our tankers ( new tanker fleet?) and the long awaited stealthy drop tanks.
Opportunity to operationally liaise with the French tactical nuclear fleet perhaps??
Just don’t read the DM, it’s full of gosh and inaccuracies. Almost same comic level as the Sun.
God yes, I forgot that one! F35A is not hose and drogue!
Its awful how rubbish journalism has become, they cant even be bothered to simply undertake due diligence before putting out some utter tosh and untruth into print, then everyone asks “Why do we suddenly need this now, we’ve never required it before?” which is really not true and a complete waste of everyone’s energy.
I’ve logged a formal complaint with the Sunday Mirror about that ridiculous and rubbish written article. The journalist didn’t even attempt to do due diligence and check her facts.
Let’s see if they write a retraction or correction.
Opportunity for us to upgrade Voyagers with a centreline boom then perhaps? With P8s, RivetJoint and, potentially now, an A model, there’s increasing justifucation to amend the AirTanker contract?
F35A also has hose and drogue option. It was originally designated F35 CF.
I disagree, F35B is the only option
I don’t think the F-35B is currently nuclear-capable.
Correct, only the F-35A is certified for nuclear strike. Certification is not a trivial matter, but perhaps cheaper than introduction a new aircraft type?
It depends how quickly the MoD wants to introduce this capability. That said, I can’t imagine purchasing a whole new set of aircraft, nuclear weapons and the training to use them will be either quick or cheap.
I don’t think the B61 fits in the B model in the first place.
Any new F-35A’s ordered now, won’t be delivered to the RAF until 2030 by the earliest! And a whole new logistic trail and a new OCU with different traning tactics.
why not a stand-off missile (similar to French ASMP) rather than a gravity bomb?
Agree a storm shadow delivered nuke carried to drop by a typhoon or F35 A. The F35A is probably the safer option owing to it’s stealth. It can approach Russian/ Chinese air defence networks and won’t be detectable until very very close, unlike typhoon.
The problem is… we fire Storm Shadows at Russia/ China/ North Korea. Do you think they will wait until they impact to see if they are conventionally or nuclear armed before they initiate a retaliatory strike?…
This was always the issue with nuclear armed Tomahawks, that the enemy may assume they are nuclear armed and retaliate with nukes.
It seems to be a weird time to be making ourselves MORE dependent on the USA.
Given that the USA has been willing to use access to weapons and systems as levers to undermine our interests (eg turning off intelligence in Ukraine, never mind the historical examples), and use us as a plaything in domestic politics, it seems to me to be a move in exactly the wrong direction.
Spot on.
Absolutely agree. We have to buy F35B to use on the carriers. Buying F35A is crazy- no integration of the British weapons we want to deploy, all of the downsides of high operating cost and poor availability and minimal industrial involvement.
We absolutely don’t need free fall tactical nukes. Far better to concentrate resources on long range non nuclear precision strike. More likely to be used and therefore a better deterrent. Using any nuclear weapon will quickly escalate to strategic weapon use.
I hope the Times story is wrong.
Agree 100%.
Too many on here automatically believe everything they read in newspapers, ignoring the blunders they make or the reporting of leaks to misdirect or cause issues.
What aircraft will survive to drop gravity bombs?
Why the F35, these are not going to be US weapons?
In fact, the US will not let us use our own nukes on F35s.
It is stupid to consider that they will.
As for the F35Bs, give them all to the Royal Naval Air Service, eradicate RAF interference in naval air.
Royal Naval Air Service hasn’t existed since 1918… 🤦🏻♂️
You obviously miss the point, entirely.
The Fleet Air Arm is the Fleet Air of the Royal Air Force.
Completely and utterly wrong. The Fleet Air Arm is the aviation division of the Royal Navy, just like the Army Air Corps is part of the British Army.
Neither is controlled by the RAF.
Point is you’re advocating for something which hasn’t existed for over a century.
Too many comments here hark back to the days of the empire, rather than addressing the situation today and what the future will be like.
This is all to do with the very unfortunate history of RAF interference with naval air infrastructure and operations.
Because of the RAF the Mediterranean Sea is our “Iron Bottom Sound”.
Learn from history, not histrionics of supposed Empire.
Your latest response, to which I cannot reply.
History.
Indeed. Interestingly, RN airfields are RN Air Stations, rather than Fleet Air Arm Stations.
Waste of money.
Let NATO nations like Germany, Italy, Spain, carry the expense of providing strike aircraft to carry B61 tactical nukes. The UK already diverts a vast amount of money away from conventional forces to pay for our SSBNs.
Spend the money on more Typhoons, Astute’s, Type 31s, etc.
Agree, however there are two audiences;
The killer of the crimlin, leader in empty threats,
The Tangerine Toddler, advocate of European spending on US weapons.
Both will be gone within 4 years, while UK national interest is served, short term. It’s politics..
Not being sea-blind, I would not back any reduction in the F-35B for operations on the CVFs, though if HMG provided additional funding to defence to purchase nuclear capable strike fighters for the light-blue, then hey, fill your (parade) boots.
.
.
Another example of high-blue influenced thinking (sic).
.
.
Not to mention gravity nukes today? (rhetorical – one must shudders to think how these idiots got their jobs and manage to keep them).
By far the easiest (and cheapest) means of upping the nuclear ante would be to announce the ending of the limits on CASD deployed missile and warhead numbers.
By reserving the “option” of putting to sea with a full compliment of missiles and warheads, the UK government increases the retaliatory threat for little to no additional cost.
Totally different beast to air dropped tactical nukes.
The air dropped bomb is a deterrent against Russia using its own tactical nukes around front line areas. Its theoretically possible a limited exchange could take place without escalating out of control and both sides recognise what’s happening and step back from the brink.
The trident can’t carry out that role. As soon as one is fired it risks a full scale retaliation from Russian strategic forces fearful of nato carrying out a first strike aimed at wiping out Russian missiles on the ground.
CASD has one job and one job only.
Actually Trident can. While most UK warheads are around 100kt, the UK has modified some of its warheads to be “sub-strategic” with a yield of only 10kt. (For comparison the Hiroshima bomb was 14kt.)
That said. Would Russia/China, seeing a Trident heading towards them, wait to see if it contained a single 10kt warhead or twelve warheads of 100kt each, before responding?…
No. Which is why I have always thought the idea daft.
Plus it gives away the position of the boat.
Agreed, but there are other non-US NATO assets capable of undertaking the tactical role if required.
RAF F35A’s would be carrying US B61s and thus offer nothing a Dutch, German, Italian or Turkish AF aircraft could provide.
Commitment, solidarity, leadership perhaps.
That would come from the US, they hold the codes.
Do we want to be beholden to the US and its president to authorise the use of tactical nukes?
We could use our own on longer ranged missiles, air or surface launched. We do not need F35 for that.
The US will never allow non-US nukes to be launched from the F35, certainly not without their authorisation.
Atomic Weapons Establishment, Aldermaston means UK has the sovereign capability to design, build and maintain its own nuclear warheads. Presumably lower yield for tactical Weapons compared to the Strategic MIRVs.
Gravity dropped makes no sense when cruise missiles could provide a stand off capability and low observeability.
I can’t see the budget stretching beyond a handful on F35a’s without sacrificing Tempest. Perhaps up to 18 airframes on rotation to provide continuous tactical level deterrence. Might also mean prematurely retiring more Typhoon aircraft.
Any F-35A’s ordered now, won’t be delivered to the RAF until 2030 by the earliest, that would be airframes for the OCU first.
This is the war, or nearly war, that we need to keep the populace constantly on edge, hiding things that the govt wants to hide.
Just like the War on Terror but they need something new.
Like the 1200 illegals who arrived yesterday who will now cost the Tax payer?
Agree. It’s unprecedented and the government should probably arrest and extradited them on the first plane back to their country of origin. We just need some air marshalls to take them back in handcuffs. The minute they land back in their country of origin. The plane chucks them out and immediately takes off.
Job done.
And if, like many, they throw their docs away?
How to prove a country of origin?
Would said countries, Iran, Iraq, African States, Albania, wherever, just accept a plane flying them back?
Never mind the whole process being held up by endless legal challenges which are designed to stop deportations, whilst feathering the lawyers nests.
I fear it isn’t as easy.
Which is why I supported off shore, into a system, you go nowhere till your case is proved beyond doubt.
And Starmer, who now talks like he is committed to reducing this yet there is film of him arguing in support of it, continues to do nothing beyond scrapping the agreement made with Rwanda.
No deterrent.
Equals no stopping what is happening.
Europe of course happily allows them through with Schengen and France will turn a blind eye.
And who can blame them?
Unlike us, they’re not stupid.
I fear you’re talking reason to a Reform supporter.
If it were so easy the politicians would already have done it. All that Mr Bell’s suggestion would achieve is the banning of British airliners from foreign airports.
Hi Spock.
It might surprise you….I am a Reform supporter, for right or wrong, as I’m SICK TO DEATH of the 2 mainstream parties inaction on this issue.
Not all stereotypes hold water, but do indeed judge me as you will.
We aren’t all raging lunatics, closet loons ( a Cameron smear which also encompassed UKIP world war 2 vets I’ve met ) thugs, racists, and other nonsense thrown.
Some of us, infact all people I know who are deeply concerned by this subject, are sensible. Indeed, the subject does attract some of that ilk and I’d hope they’re dealt with.
Indeed, it isn’t as easy.
Mate, I feel for you guys in the UK. Fortunately, the tyranny of distance is our ally in NZ. The tragedy is that the minority of genuine refugees will be swamped within the masses of these opportunists.
FSB kompromat operations against other European NATO countries have delivered random people to those borders from conflict zones under RF influence.
Strong and aware countries such as Finland have simply closed their border with the terrorist state to frustrate those operations. Since there are no people trafficking gangs routinely exploiting porous borders, it’s obvious that the terrorist state is running the operations.
Clearly there’s zero shared history or ethnicity of Syrians in Finland. It’s a blatant scam.
There’s no political ambiguity or misunderstanding that people are economic requirements for success in the 21st century. Obviously industrial scale and competitive value are provided by investment in automated manufacturing not by untrained warm bodies. Even service industry requires a level of education and training that isn’t generally available from economic migrants, certainly not when selected by FSB.
As nice as this might be I can’t help but feel like it must be pretty low down the list of priorities at the moment, even within the category of F-35 based munitions. I would rather see long-range precision munitions, heavyweight anti-ship missiles, and anti-radiation missiles before moving onto nukes. As a strike platform the F-35B is highly restricted right now in its options.
Agreed, we spend a huge amount on our nuclear forces already. Of the many nations in NATO, were one of the three that shoulders the financial burden of SSBNs. Let the others handle strike aircraft for nuclear bombs.
Our conventional forces are where the cash has been taken from in the past. It’s the conventional forces that need building up.
To be honest first things first we have 2 of the largest most potent carriers on the planet, they are a massive strategic asset, we should first and foremost maximise their potential and for that we need 4 front line squadrons of F35b, with OCU and 20-25% sustainment fleet that’s 60 deployed jets and 15 in a sustainment fleet
At present we have ordered 44 front line F35B So the first order of business should be another 31 F35b and the raising of 2 more squadrons.
Personally I think having a U.S. duel keyed tactical nuclear weapon is not what we need at all as a second part of our nuclear deterrence.. what we need is an independent sub strategic weapon.. essentially an air launched long range missile that can carry a 100kt range warhead.. personally I think on that we need to collaborate with the French ASN4G hypersonic missile, it’s costing them a lot of money and has no export potential..so getting the UK involved creates no work-share issues it’s also a MBDA missile. It’s costing them at least 5 billion to develop and that’s before the 1.5billion to purchase the missiles..so I bet they could sugared into sharing… a more reliable nuclear partner than the U.S. as we know that essentially we will be shooting our nuclear weapons at the same target and at the same time.
More reliable, France!
Otherwise, I absolutely agree.
In the nuclear context yes..I and say this for one very very important reason
Do you think for a second the US would risk Mutual assured destruction to respond to a nuclear strike on Europe ? My personal view is that they would not.
France on the other hand is 30 miles away and essentially will suffer the same as we would in regards to a mass nuclear strike on Europe..so from the point of view of nuclear deterrent France are the more reliable partner..
Well, from a French standpoint, uk is everything but reliable: dunkirk, Iraq war, aukus…. In any case, if uk keeps on buying us equipment for its nuclear deterrent, there is zero chance of partnership on nuclear.
Dunkirk – you do know that the UK landed troops in France after Dunkirk surely?
They were withdrawn after the French said that they were to surrender. Check the SS Lancastria.
I am not aware of any issues regarding the Iraq War.
I have never suggested a nuclear arrangement with France. That would be out of the frying pan and into the fire.
The armistice was sought and signed a month after the dunkirk « withdrawal » which started after 5 days of fight.
No issue about the Iraq war? Exception of the division of Europe, the alignement on the US position, the total disaster on a strategical standpoint, the objectives not fulfilled and the terrorist attack spree it triggered.
Meanwhile… Ukraine wreaks havoc on Russian bomber forces by driving container truck near them and launching waves of kamikaze drones out of the back…
Up to 40 bombers damaged/ destroyed.
An excellent attack. Absolute saturation against a strategic bomber airfield deep in Russia, far behind the front lines where the Russian’s had assumed they were safe from attack.
RAF take note. We have to sort out our GBAD capability as an absolute priority.
Strange old world. I’ve been suggesting the RAF should have the F35A variant for three/four years and every time I mention it I am “shot down” on UKDJ. Now, apparently it’s a good idea. I still do not agree with Tactical nuclear weapons though. Certainly not bombs and certainly not American, otherwise we become even more under U.S. control.
No, it’s still a bad idea.
As soon as you cross the nuclear threashold everybody loses.
If you were to use tac nukes, why involve a manned aircraft when a missile could do the job with no risk to pilots or airframe?
I asumed the article meant that future Tempests would be tac nuke capable & the F35A was a typo for the F35Bs the RAF/FAA operate.
I’d rather we concentrate on providing the mainiland UK with decent missile defence coverage & civil air raid shelters as we’re pretty wide open to missile & drone attacks. I doubt we’ve enough sytstems to put up even token defence of half of our military sites, let alone defense manufacturing, vital infrastructure etc.
If true it seems a bad decision, this will put pressure on Warton for foreign Typhoon sales and potentially undermine Tempest.
Surely we can clear Typhoon to carry free-fall nukes if we wanted to !?
I don’t understand our need to alwa6s have the best of everything whilst scrapping proven systems that have a broad range of capabilities.
Typhoon would struggle to get to the front line to drop them so it’s not worth the expense of fitting it with them.
Conformal fuel tanks?
A modernised WE177 warhead fitted to an extended range Storm Shadow. Slung under Typhoon. No need for expensive American aircraft or the politics that goes with it.
How many times does the danger of equipping cruise missiles with nuclear warheads need to be explained? There is a good reason we haven’t gone down that avenue…
Who are we meant to be deterring?
russian airbases have been bombed and over 40 planes etc targeted
We dont need any F35 A, B , C, D,E or F with any nukes
A waste of money!
More important things to buy
We are deterring Russia from using nuclear weapons… pure as.
Exactly. A flexible military doctrine allows for a range of responses. A credible tactical nuclear weapon has to be one of them. Gravity bombs are not credible. An air launched missile is credible and easily within our ability to deploy fairly rapidly on existing platforms.
Agree we need a capability similar to France.. a long range airborne sub strategic response..( 500-1000km and 100KT range warhead) by the nature of the beast we don’t need a lot.. enough missiles and warheads for a squadron.. as these are not the main strategic deterrent ( MAD) but instead the deterrent against Russia using tactical nuclear strikes to escalate to de escalate.. as he knows we are never going to unleash our full strategic arsenal to respond to 1 warhead the tridents are not a deterrent.. if he knows we can easily fire one back, escalate to de escalate becomes pointless and the use of tactical nuclear weapons is deterred.
We buying Nukes from the US. Or restarting the production we had from the 90s?
24 F35b 24 Typhoon job done
+ 3 P 8 and 2 E7 and 6 more A400 Plus commit to 5more T31,s All available CH2 to be upgraded to CH3 More boxers And get the medium HC requirement sorted with 35 airframes. Equip Dreadnought with full 12 D5 with full warhead load out .
A better solution might be, F35c for the RAF, as the (c) has the greatest range on internal fuel, It’s also compatible with our tanker fleet. Give the F35b to the navy and keep current numbers. Initiate project Ark Royal, Fit cats & traps to the carriers with the intention of adding mass / capability primarily through drones, and use the RAF’s F35c for additional mass, if and when it’s needed. As an aside, I’ve read the F35c comes with an assortment of landing aids that make it far easier to land than previous jets, which would potentially mean less rigorous training requirements, if true ?.
Pretty sure buying the F-35A will cause a fight with the Royal Navy over the F-35s and people will trying to get the RN got rid of which the RAF knows full well is a bad idea.
yeah, this is why I’m suspecting the F-35A buy is not true and it might be F-35B capable of taking B61-12 which the F-35B can do.
Yeah the RAF view the F-35A as a threat to the Tempest programme
Good to see that we haven’t learned not to rely too heavily on the US made equipment……
I’d rather we dusted off and refurbished a dozen Buccaneers…
Slightly OT, the EU clears venture for fighter jet co-operation between UK, Italy and Japan. The European Commission has approved a deal between Britain’s BAE Systems, Italy’s Leonardo and the Japan Aircraft Industrial Enhancement Co to govern the production of a next-generation fighter jet.
The joint venture, which Brussels cleared on Monday, comes as key US allies such as Italy, the UK and Japan rethink their historical reliance on US defence equipment in light of Donald Trump’s presidency and his pullback from long-standing US security guarantees for Europe.
The project will seek to create an alternative to the US’s next-generation fighter jet programme. The existing F-35 fighter and its predecessors are a mainstay for Nato air forces, but this has prompted concern in some capitals about their over-reliance on Washington.
Brussels concluded that the deal did not raise competition concerns in the bloc. So what does this mean for FCAS ???
Yes please. Other people raise good points about this diverting resources from Tempest, or that it would be a strategic mistake to buy B61 bombs from the US (if that’s even the plan). But I am fully sold on the idea that the the UK needs tactical nuclear weapons again, asap.
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, as part of NATO’s tactical nuclear deterrent capability.