The UK will purchase 12 F-35A fighter jets and formally join NATO’s Dual Capable Aircraft (DCA) nuclear sharing mission, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer will announce today.
The move represents the most significant change to Britain’s nuclear posture in a generation and will reintroduce an air-delivered nuclear capability to the Royal Air Force for the first time since the Cold War.
Speaking ahead of this week’s NATO summit, the Prime Minister said the decision would strengthen the UK’s deterrence posture, support over 20,000 jobs across the country, and deliver what he called a “defence dividend” for British industry.
“In an era of radical uncertainty we can no longer take peace for granted,” said Starmer. “These F-35 dual capable aircraft will herald a new era for our world-leading Royal Air Force and deter hostile threats that threaten the UK and our Allies.”
The Ministry of Defence confirmed that the aircraft will be based at RAF Marham and will supplement the UK’s existing fleet of F-35B short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) jets. The F-35A, a conventional take-off variant, is nuclear-capable and interoperable with US B61-12 gravity bombs, which form the core of NATO’s air-delivered nuclear capability.
The order is part of the UK’s longer-term plan to procure 138 F-35s overall. By opting for 12 F-35As rather than additional B variants in this tranche, the MoD says it will save up to 25% per aircraft.
Defence Secretary John Healey said the Strategic Defence Review recognised rising nuclear risks and recommended a stronger NATO-first approach to deterrence.
“This is an embodiment of NATO first,” he said, “strengthening the alliance while at the same time using defence as an engine for growth to create jobs across the UK.”
The move also marks the return of a nuclear strike role for the RAF, three decades after the UK retired its WE.177 bombs. Until now, the UK’s nuclear deterrent has rested solely on the submarine-based Trident system.
NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte welcomed the UK’s decision:
“The UK has declared its nuclear deterrent to NATO for many decades, and I strongly welcome today’s announcement that the UK will now also join NATO’s nuclear mission and procure the F-35A. This is yet another robust British contribution to NATO.”
Much of the F-35 global supply chain is UK-based, with firms such as BAE Systems, Rolls-Royce, Martin Baker and Leonardo UK involved in the programme. The government says the order will sustain thousands of skilled jobs at more than 100 companies across the country.
The announcement follows wider SDR commitments to invest in the UK’s nuclear infrastructure, including the construction of four new Dreadnought-class ballistic missile submarines and £15 billion for the sovereign warhead programme.
While the UK remains committed to the long-term goal of global nuclear disarmament, ministers have described the F-35A acquisition as essential for maintaining credible deterrence in a deteriorating global security environment. The UK’s “triple-lock” on nuclear weapons policy—Parliament, government and legal safeguards—remains in place.
Further details, including timelines for integration into NATO’s DCA rotation and RAF squadron assignment, are expected at or after the NATO summit.
Sobh Bakheer.
Great news this morning. With these 12 F35A’s, we can now boast the ability to strike at will, at short notice and at any place in the world remaining tottaly undetectable and unseen (not with the missing POW F35 load promised pre deployment). Buying off the shelf to fill the GAP until GGAP makes total sense and rather than buying the next bunch of B’s, we can now boast a “Druid” of Nuclear capabilities ( not sure if Druid is the correct term for two of the Triad but it sounds good and is rather apt for the time of year).
“It’s an ill wind that blows”
So unimpressed with this uk announcement. Can someone explain where we would need to drop a tactical nuke? If on Russian soil it would highly risk full nuke escalation, if on a Russian military concentration in friendly territory we have just nuked friendly territory. Where do we use this???
I think the second scenario is much more likely. They nuke us (or an ally) with a tactical sized weapon, we do the same back. Same deterrence principle as the strategic weapons. But the smaller tactical weapons won’t have anywhere near the radioactive fallout.
Ok Andrew, however I think with uk’s very limited resources this is a luxury capability we do not need. Let enato do this and uk can allow them to disperse to uk airfields if needed. If worse case Russia did a tactical nuke on say uk Crete base. We would expect nato response or what’s the point of nato. Maybe Crete base needs more air defence in any case.
You have to understand that this is a political statement of will. NATO has never used a nuke in anger & hopefully never will, but you need to keep your deterrent credible. It is a warning to Russia not to use their tactical nukes. The RAF in the 1950s was asked to carry US MK7 tactical nukes, but never used one for real.
Can you trust US, Germany, France to take that step when needed? Looking at Ukraine the UK has always been the first to cross a line for NATO. Be it tanks, long range missiles, depleted Uranium.
It’s better that we have the ability, because others are to indecisive.
Hope they’re not just relying on a free fall nuke. What about a powered stand off missile or even a glide bomb at least? Will these also be used in more conventional and anti ship roles?
We had nuclear capable bombers during the cols war. Our adversary Russia and the Warsaw pack.
It worked rather well.
One day I’ll tell you how we trained for war.
Grimsby and Swindon are two potential B61 targets….
It is the wrong term mate. You should have said “Dryad.”
A Dryad sounds like Triad, and is a wood spirit, a female who lives in a tree, usually an Oak. And they are friendly to Druids. 😄
Perhaps the beginning of the resurrection/reconstitution of RAF Bomber Command. Twelve F-35As and a supply of B61-12s initially, but the future may include GCAP/B-21/ SR-72 (bomber variant) w/ a full spectrum of stand-off nukes. Eventually, when Mad Vlad or his successor indulges in additional nuclear saber rattling, the British Lion could either roar back or quietly state that the Orcs must either step off or make the UK’s day. Personally prefer W.S. Churchill’s quote: “When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.” Helluva leader!
Hi, Y’all.
Agreed about a sort of “Bomber Command” resurgence but I’ll bet it will be more “Tempest” based rather than B21. By all accounts, Tempest will be longer range focussed, so together with it’s stealth and sensor suite, it’ll make for a rather effective bomber.
“In war it does not matter who is right but who is left”.
Buy a B21 bomber or a Type 26 frigate for the same cost? Well that’s a no-brainier, it’s the latter EVERY time.
As for the F35As a ridiculous token force to keep the Mango Mussolini happy. Hopefully once he’s removed from the White House the order will be converted back to F35Bs.
Mango Mussolini? Dear oh dear,are you 13?
Well it’s a obviously a pretty accurate description as you knew who I meant 😏
(Or are you objecting on behalf of everyone who gets sprayed with fake tan?)
70 F35 Bs the rest will be made up of the A version, whats not to like?
The Navy maintain the carriers and the air force end up with a better, lighter and faster jet that is 25% cheaper and easier and less expensive to maintain.
So many questions….
I guess considering the 5-year delay with Meteor integration these aircraft will carry B-61s under the NATO weapons sharing program ? At least at first ?
Do these 12 airframes come out of the 70-odd F-35Bs or are they additional orders ?
Delivery timeframe ?
Guess with our problems keeping a Vanguard at sea this is good news…
It actually tells you in the article that these 12 will be in place of 12 B’s.
No, It’s ok, it happens a lot.
So this is a stealth cut then. 12 aircraft is not a credible force and nothing more than a token.
It isnt,the A variant will fill the original order,it’s not hard to find this out.
How is buying 12 nuclear capable F35A instead of 12 F35B a cut ?
Because a small fleet of 12 aircraft is a token force desinged to grab headlines. Instead of 12 addition F35Bs that would generate much needed combat mass for the existing fleet.
No 70Bs the rest will be the A version.
Where are you getting the 70 number from?
I must admit I missed it. And its a bit vague in my opinion.
Sounds to me like its a way of saving half-a-billion quid and making it sound like a capability step by throwing in the nuclear dimension.
More smoke and mirrors. Have the US even agreed yet to include us in the B-61 share ?
The next tranche was already budgeted for and awaiting Lockheeds availability, we were going for about 24 additional B variants (off the top of my head) to take the fleet up to 72. I wonder if they will scrap the planned 20 something aircraft in the order for just 12 A’s or if they will split it as an even 12:12 and continue procuring both together. If the government has decided to try and get to the original 138 plan then the A model will make getting there significantly easier to due to its it’s now dramatically reduced cost (less than a Eurofighter now) and will satisfy the RAF not having to share with the FAA.
What a lot of pointless uninformed wondering ….
Whilst I support the CASD as the deterrent of last resort, anything that reduces the nuclear threshold is to be deplored. All that this decision will do is to make RAF Marham even more of a nuclear target. I would rather see the money spemt on the Army
Agreed, this seems like a massive capital investment for something that is a nice to have not a necessity. I can think of a few things that should be more pressing than this.
Inter Service Rivalry will always be a thing with our Armed Forces, money is tight and has to be spent wisely. The British Army will get it’s share obviously, but it has to be able to prove that it can spend it’s budget sensibly, which it has struggled to do in the past.
Paul, literally all three services were guilty of the same thing, which was one of the drivers behind the Levine reform (ie it was felt that the Army had been cut to fund carrier strike). Equally RAF projects (MRA4….for example) had huge over-runs and were eventually cut.
And don’t forget, most of the issues people point out about the Army (FRES then STRIKE etc etc) were caused by HERRICK and the declaration of Op ENTIRETY – which put all Army programmes on hold to focus the entire force on campaign success. That was because the Army, for obvious reasons, was the lead force for HERRICK. The RN and RAF simply didn’t go through that period and continued to focus on the future force development whilst contributing assets to the campaign. And the RN still managed to mess up the budget so much they had to cut Amphib Strike when it was a core capability.
Hopefully now that CDS is actually at the top of the Chain of Command rather than an advisor to the cabinet – it will stop most of the rivalry and we can become a truly integrated force.
“It’ll make RAF Marham more of a Nuclear target”.
One is quietly pissing one’s self at that statement here in Marham’s back yard !
Must “prep” for a bigger bomb I guess.
Hope they’ll check their fence security and get some shorad on air bases and GBAD for the UK. Why only 12 and not 16 or 24? Is 12 one squadron’s worth?
Its a minimum purchase that ticks a lot of boxes. It shows solidarity with E-NATO; like France we will be able to say we are ‘sharing our nuclear umbrella’ with German; it probably saves money in the short term; the RAF finally gets a Tornado replacement and it helps keep Trump onside- I notice Starmer is bringing forward his state visit to the UK. Politics is such great fun. The deterrence program we really need are Brakestop, the 7000 cruise missiles and the 2000km missile.
70Bs the rest will be the A version so more than 12.
It’s all coming in twelves. Twelve submarines, twelve F35A, it must be someone’s lucky number. As for this, more planes are always welcome. Nuclear gravity bombs are abit yesterday. Even if they are dropped by a ‘stealth’ aircraft. I’d prefer to have seen a stand off weapon with a british warhead onboard. Who know’s we might yet.
“Twelves”, ah, the old imperial measurement system! Good to see this increased capability and the additional defence budget commitment, but such a long time coming. The short sightedness of SDR10 finally comes home to roost.
12 tribes of Israel, 12 apostles, 12 months in the year, 12 signs of the zodiac, 12 men on a jury…..12 signifies completeness.
Out of the 12 perhaps 6 will be online and its a different beast needing different trainings and logs compared to the B model. RAF getting some shinny toys that have realy next to no effect with such a small number. Better order the extra B’s needed to ensure the third Naval Squadron is formed and pass the entire Fleet over to the FAA to deal with and we will have some punch then from anywhere we want rather than on one silly base that is not defended or secure by anyones standards but the RAF.
Good news but as usual is not enough, with the RAF with so few aurcraft at least 40-50 are needed as well as more F35 B,s or typhoons.
Not unexpected but to buy only 12 seems a little underwhelming – maybe 15 would guarantee full Squadron availability going forwards to GCAP / Tempest.
Not something I’m happy about. This will be an expensive waste of money. The main reason to go for F-35A is because it can carry American nuclear nombs. If we were doing this in house, we’d put it on Tempest. So will this be another dual-key system, like Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy and Turkey already host, or will this be an outright purchase in which case we’d have to create a maintenance system to make it independent? The former paradigm does nothing. It pointlessly adds another country to the list of dual key countries, and the US has hosted its nukes in Britain in the past and could do so again in the future. The difference is in the past they paid and now we’d pay. To get a truly independent system we’d have to create our own warheads at the very least. It would take years to sort that.
I suspect the jets are a cheap deal from America to get F-35A into the UK’s military as part of ongoing efforts to destroy Tempest. Nevertheless, we don’t have the money for yet another system, especially not another nuclear one. Unless it’s paid for outside of the military budget and there’s no chance of that, the money for purchase, set-up, training, maintenance and operations will all come from the conventional military budget, that more hollowing out. The RAF will have to walk a tightrope between welcoming the F-35A, which they’ve long wanted and causing the degredation of the carrier programme and the abandonment of Tempest. If they ask for another 12 as soon as these planes start to arrive, it would not surprise me.
I predicted this, The F3A 5was always on the cards with Europe central defence policy change.
F-35A to torpedo Tempest?
Naturally the future is not ours to see, but the UK”s committment to Tempest was specifically recomfirmed only a few weeks ago in the long awaited SDSR. I for one don’t really see the huge political, industrial and defence implications of cancelling this international project as something much worth worrying about at this time. However, I do agree that the RAF desire the F-35A above the B model and now that the principal of a split fleet has been conceded the likelihood of additional F-35A orders being placed in the not too distant future has noticeably increased. Indeed, I’ve seen it reported elsewhere that the wording for this F-35A order is for ‘at least’ 12 aircraft – let’s wait and see.
Needless to say if we are going to field a split F-35 fleet then the AAR problem with the F-35A must be addressed – but that issue surely required attention in any case as the RAF already operate other types that require the boom method of refueling. One of the disappointing aspects of the SDSR was that this pressing AAR issue was not even mentioned.
My gut feeling is this purchase of 12 has come from the budget for 27 tranche 2 F35Bs. And they can probably get hold of them pretty quickly, with more to follow. 12 is barely enough for an OCU, let alone a frontline Sqn. I’m pleased we are getting F35A, but we still need more Bs for Carrier strike. Hopefully longer term F35 numbers will be clearer in the Autumn equipment plan.
Your “Gut feeling” is backed up by the article where it actually states these 12 will be in place of 12 B’s.
just sayin like.
That statement is still to vague to say anything for certain, it could be that they split the next tranche 15:12 and continue the procurement of both as “instead of 12,” infers a not total replacement of the other aircraft type and gives a very specific number out of what is already known to be 27 additional jets. It could also be total replacement for the B model in this next order if they are using the already budgeted funds to pay for the new infrastructure that will be needed, the A model is now significantly cheaper than the B and the EF2000 so in theory we should get more A’s than B’s if we were to start procuring them. However, paying for the required infrastructure upgrades to Marham won’t be cheap and 12 maybe all they could afford after paying for that out of the existing pot.
And makes Marham a bigger target.
It doesn’t state clearly that these 12 F35As are instead of 12 F35Bs. Neither does the official government announcement. Just saying..
Ok. My mistake. Just seen the official announcement from the RAF stating the tranche 2 purchase will be for 12 F35As and 15 F35Bs. With further numbers to be decided in the defence investment plan.
A suggestion made on X says that the ‘A’ s can take over the OCU Role, thus freeing up more ‘B’s for Operations, so sort of a win win.
Two words sum this up – Ridiculous and Embarrassing! If you truly wish to maintain an effective F35A force you are looking at a minimum purchase of 36 airfames in order to cover OCU requirements and servicing! With 12, you might be lucky to have 6 available. Plus of course we need more F35Bs to maintain our carrier capability! As per usual, there is a reluctance to spend the money needed……
Only 6 available? If they are for dropping a tactical nuke as a graded response, how many do you think we’d need to have available?
Even a F35 will get taken out before reaching its target. Would have gone with the French option at least they have their own nuc’s without need of asking another if we can go or not. RN had that role for many years with SHAR’s and it was always known to be a one way trip.
Yup “Rediculous and Embarrasing” does some that comment up quit well.
It is a far-left government reluctant to spend on weapons; Starmer’s words about increasing capabilities are a bluff; the number of planes, tanks and ships is ridiculous and totally insufficient; in the event of a conflict in which the United Kingdom would have to defend itself alone without external support, the country would be almost unarmed.
You think it’s Starmer who directly decided to make the numbers what they? He’s just inherited a mess all around and defense has the most obvious symptoms of neglect. It’s take years to get into such a position (like 12+…) not just one man demonized by the press.
Hush now and do try to keep up with reality if you can
Another aircraft that Voyager can’t refuel.
12 bought but is the nuclear bunker-age and support going to be built at Marham, or will a couple be rotated to a Nuclear base in Holland, Belgium or Germany.
If so it’s a lot of cost to show solidarity with European allies..
It will come from planned purchase of F35B so Starmer is putting no new money in whilst telling us we are a few years from war.
What’s the serviceability of 12? 9 at a time?
This is smoke and mirrors to cover for the fact spending won’t go up till 2027 and the 5% will include national infrastructure
This only makes sense of we bought at least 40 and the US was willing to sell us 50 B61-12 lock stock for a truly independent capability.
It was apparent in the 1960’s that the UK was defenceless against the damage caused by the new type of Atomic Weapons. therefore any massive bunker building expenditure was a total waste of time effort and money.
I allowed myself to believe that this was not a serious suggestion. How utterly absurd.
In the 80 years since WW2 the not so evil Russians haven’t once attacked the UK. Meanwhile the UK is actually under / threat of attack from Muslim extremists, uncontrolled immigration that will lead to social unrest bordering on civil war etc.
Wouldn’t it make far more sense to spend the money in actual threats instead of fantasy ones?
Russia attacks us all the time: hundreds or thousands of cyber attacks a day. Paid trolls in St Petersburg try to control our social-media narrative. It has used radiation weapons to kill Litvinyenko, a UK citizen. Russian neurotoxins in Salisbury killed another UK citizen, and Putin has threatened to nuke Britain repeatedly over the last few years.
Which planet are you on Keith?
We have a known list of 150 or so hybrid operations Russia has carried out in Western Europe just in recent years.
We should be limiting the amount of US equipment to an absolute bare minimum so more F35B but not this token order for a capability we haven’t had for over a quarter of a century but which we will not ultimately control.
It would make more sense to lease some and replace when Tempest enters service or alternatively an order for Typhoon would be more preferable.
This should be put in the context that the Yanks will be desperate to do anything that negatively impacts on Tempest and this order plus anymore is absolutely part of that strategy.
It’s ok though because we have a ‘World Leading RAF’. Do they realise how stupid this statements have become and open to ridicule.
Good move but 12 is just not enough. More than any other service the RAF needs numbers. We can afford to increase the fast jet force dramatically. Just look at Israel and Iran for what an air force can do now look at Ukraine. They have an Army of nearly 1 million but with no air force they cant achieve anything on the ground. We need 70 F35A and 70F35B equipping 6 squadrons with 100 Typhoons in 5 squadrons for air defence.
Colour me curious, but is using the F35A in contested airspace even feasible against modern SAMs like the S400. The maximum range of a B62-12 nuclear weapon with the tail kit developed by Boeing and launched at maximum altitude of 50,000 feet is only around 80km.
This is well within the range of an S400 missile. If the S400 radar is able to detect and provide a target track on an F35 further out than 80km then an F35 is going to be serious risk even before it gets into the launch envelope for the B62.
Regardless of the platform or which NATO country drops this weapon it does not seem to have the stand off range needed.
Whilst I don’t know the specifics of S-400, or F-35’s stealth abilities, one would imagine Ukraine has taught Western powers a lot about what all Russian air defences can and can’t do. Likewise Israel’s strikes in the Middle East would have informed on F-35 capability, so it’s not a completely uninformed decision at least.
The problem is Voyagers not being equipped for boom refuelling, so any strike would have to be telegraphed in advance by these being forward deployed in Europe. That or use NATO MRRT (NATO just ordered 2 more), but that brings a whole new kettle of fish to the table.
F35A is available in hose and drogue configuration.
We were always going to buy the F35A as part of the European centric policy shift. The F35b has compromises but excellent on a carrier 1000s of miles from friendly bases. That’s simply not the case in Europe where range and weapons load is more important. The F35A is also far cheaper to buy and operate and maintenance facilities are already available We have the training infrastructure and with cockpit being almost identical betwen types RAF pilots will enjoy the same luxury as civilian Airbus pilots where they find it easy to move types. I expect this may not be limited to 12!
Maintenance facilities available? Could you enlarge on that, please? I’m sure you are aware that F-35A is substantially different to F-35B and that infrastructure for handling nukes is not the same as that for handling conventional missiles, which is why I’m surprised at that statement.
I got a tip off about the likelihood of an F35 A buy several months ago, any second line Maintenance will be carried out at RAF Lakenheath.
Fair enough. I’m a little surprised they let us in.
wasting £ / resources on this sideshow. americans have complete ownership of free fall bombs how does that fit with being independent of a future donald type president? simple proposal: for those who believe in tactical. we can just allow any nato country with tactical nukes to disperse to UK in heightened times. suspect raf just wanted this over the navy but it may jeopardize tempest
Are we insane?
With this eating even further into the F35B numbers, carrier strike will less effective. 12 bombers is not enough on their own either.
This feels like an act of utter desperation.
It’s not completely beyond the realms of possibility that we move to a service specific model, with the Royal Navy operating F-35B and RAF F-35A exclusively, with the RAF’s current B fleet being rolled into the Royal Navy. There’s nothing to say a further order won’t include both variants, although this is the MOD/UK Gov we’re talking about, so they could just stop at 48 and claim cost saving.
It’s a short-term political statement so Sir Keir Starmer can temporize on the 5% and still look collegiate. Seen in the light of not spending real money on real defence, a few more billion taken away from conventional defence to look good politically will be deemed by the PM as money well spent.
Pains me to say it but Labour has done more sort out the mess the Armed forces was in, in last 11 months than the last Government did in 13/14 years. Let hope it carries on, seems as if finally some has woke up to the mess and sad state of affairs it had all become. I will wait and see what and how many of each thing is ORDERED rather than what is talked up.
Agreed.
Utterly illogical decision. We are concerned about
A. The increased aggressiveness of Russia and
B. The apparent weakening of the US commitment to NATO and European defence.
So we decide to buy American aircraft to deploy a US free fall nuclear bomb with dual key control, that we can only use with US approval.
This is not just a bad decision, it’s bizarre in its stupidity.
It gives us the problem of how to refuel an aircraft that cannot use drogues and an aircraft which will not be able to use, in its non nuclear role, other UK weapons.
As to the claimed industrial benefits- swapping 12 F35Bs for 12 F35As adds no benefits to the UK at all, rather the reverse as there is more UK content in the B variant.
There really is no limit to the idiocy of this government. In the week in which Muslim extremists have attacked RAF aircraft, Keir Starmer chooses instead to talk up the threat from Russia.
The argument that this decision will enhance European nuclear deterrence is very thin. The idea that an exchange of tactical nuclear weapons with yield potentially 25 times that of the Hiroshima bomb will stop rather than lead to further escalation is not convincing.
Russia has experienced the power of Western precision weapons. Israel has just demonstrated their superiority again. Ramping up conventional capabilities would be a far more effective deterrent.
Not really. The UK has always been the key driver behind NATO and the glue that holds it together. This (along with the return of US nukes to UK soil, presumably to RAF Lakenheath) signals a further commitment to shared defence and tactical nuclear weapons. We’re already dependent on the US for the F35B.
We already had the boom refuelling issue for the P8s and E7s, expect an announcement that UK will join the European Air Refuelling Pool and donate some of our Voyager capacity to it, in return for access to boom refuelling from that. Maybe 1-2 extra Voyagers to the RAF fleet to backfill the donated capacity.
We ARE ramping up conventional capabilities with these 7,000 extra missiles amongst other things. The F35A has 30% more range and costs 25% less per unit, it also can mount far more weapon types at present. Further orders will allow a wing to operate with conventional as well as nuclear strike capabilities.
Agreed, the UK is the NATO hinge, this is all a bout maintaining that position. This is our main role in the world and it has been since 1940.
Can someone explain (gentlly), what would prevent the UK from making its own ‘new’ WE.177 equivalent(s). I doubt they deleted the blueprints/CAD for them, and surely UK has some fissile material, or could generate some more … and a metal casing and some electronics surely isn’t beyond our capability?
Making a New WE177 should not be much of a problem, I’d guess the integration issues with the F35 platform would be the main barrier.
The WE177 wouldn’t pass a modern safety case.
Then you have the integration costs.
I’d rather we focussed on doing this for Tempest. We did miss a trick doing this with Germany for Typoon but that ship sailed due to the glacial pace of increases in defence spending and thinking in the UK.
12 F35A in place of F35B still means the F35B force increases to 61 airframes after Tranche 2 is delivered, should still be enough for 3 squadrons of 12, though 4 of 9 might make more sense esp if future tranches will focus on F35A. As for the number of As, yes a batch of 12 (once 2-3 in maintenance and training flight of 3 accounted for) would only see a max of 6 in service initially, other nations started small with their buys (the Netherlands’ first batch was just 8 units), but we can expect further units in a 3rd Tranche and, hopefully, a 2nd base once the A fleet is big enough.
I wonder if these ‘A’ s will be pooled like the ‘B’ between Squadrons, or will they be allocated to a specific Squadron?.If the latter surely they would be a better fit for 617SQ due to their main role.
So for me it all comes down to a few core things and that will depend if this is good or bad..as a politician would say it’s all in the details.
First off at least it’s an order for more fighters which is important.. we have all been waiting for orders and we have one.
So my questions
1) will the B61-12 design be shared with the UK so we can build our own and will we, because I think the key weakness of the duel key is that Russia may just bet on the U.S. not risking MAD for Europe and not releasing the B61-12.. so unless it’s operationally independent I would consider it not making a significant difference to the UK deterrent. So if the UK then builds itself its own free fall nuclear weapons then its a good thing..
2) how will the F35A be operated is it going to be merged into the f35b squadrons or will it have its own squadron.. this is important because it then goes to the next question
3) what will the fast jet squadron mix be.. are we now cutting our plan to 2 F35b squadrons and 1 F35A squadron, because that will essentially screw over the CBG and the 12+ billion invested in that so far. Or are we still going for 3 F35b squadrons and adding an F35A squadron..which will mean a drop in typhoon squadron numbers.. most people will remember that I have said for a long time the 96 single seat typhoons in tranche 2 and 3 are not enough to keep the typhoon squadrons as they are, as you cannot run 6 front line squadrons, a joint squadron, the Falklands flight, test and evaluation and OCU on 96 aircraft. This links to
4) will they still order in a timely way F35bs to move the numbers up to the level for 3 squadrons ( you need about 55-60 for 3 squadrons).
So I think it will be positive if:
1)the UK is committing to returning to building its own sub strategic nuclear deterrent and this is a step.
2)the UK still builds up the f35b so it has 3 fully equipped F35b squadrons ( with 12 operational jets each) ( so orders another 12 to 20 F35Bs and sustains that level with future orders in a decade or so)
3) maintains a full F35A squadron ( this would need a future order of f35As)
It will not be positive.. if these F35As essentially become an orphan fleet jammed between tempest and F35b.. the impact on the final numbers of tempest ordered or reduced the viability fleet of F35b below the level to operate 3 squadrons..
But on the bright side it could indicate early thoughts around what an RAF in a world with 3.5% core spending would look like.. and that would be more squadrons.. so maybe this is the first bright light to more RAF fast jet squadrons.. a 2035 plan of 3 F35b, 3 F35A and 6 tempest squadrons would not be unreasonable or unrealistic for a nation that is going to spend 3.5% of its pretty significant GDP on defence.
Let’s be positive 🫣
Hi, I think this could be a step to having our own tac nukes without the huge initial outlay. I’m certain the F35As will be in a separate unit, don’t think anywhere has a unit with different variants? 12 isn’t a viable fleet size, so this will v.likely lead to a follow-on order for As, but for Bs we might just see attrition buys in small numbers as the 14 in Tranche 2 will swell the force to 61 (inc the 3 stateside) which should be enough for 32-36 in squadrons.
Much of this announcement is being done for the theatre which is the right thing for HMG to do in the face of the threat from basically one man to pull out of NATO if he doesn’t get his way.
I doubt if they have gotten any where near a plan on B61 or a UK weapon however im guessing it’s very much just a case of us buying F35A anyway to bulk up the RAF so we can put this out there for no cost and get a massive increase the the MOD perception.
However the UK being involved with B61 might also provide resilience in the future as it would be possible for the UK to replace the US as the second dual code operator without violating the NPT should the US pull out of NATO.
Not the answer we all want but optics really do matter, they may be the most important aspects in modern defence and security diplomacy.
I wasn’t too far off!
‘Andrew June 1, 2025 At 13:41
I can’t see the budget stretching beyond a handful on F35a’s without sacrificing Tempest. Perhaps up to 18 airframes on rotation…’
Oh dear, expensive, man power intensive, occasionally available, will not integrate UK weapons for years, LM and US controlled. The TacNuc bit is a whitewash they will remain firmly under US control. The UK is unlikely to develop its own, and if it did how would it integrate them? The RAF wanted proper aircraft and they got them. Rant over.
So…… not a single extra plane to add to our pitiful numbers. I had always wanted A’s for RAF but was told that brought issues re refueling etc……same as i wanted Cats & Traps for carriers.
Other than the “bomb” we get a plane with more load capacity and range ?
Refuelling is certainly a sticking point, but not in the same ball park as cats and traps. Lack of boom refuelling was already an issue for the RAF’s E7, P8 and Rivet Joint aircraft – essentially the F35A purchase brings this to a head such that a solution will need be found.
Airbus advised that modifying the existing Voyagers would be prohibitively expensive and advised procuring 1-2 extra units. Elsewhere on here I suggest UK joints the European Air Refuelling Pool, quite possibly both of these will happen.
I would have been supportive of a larger buy of F35As for convential RAF strike roles, but this seems to be the worst of both worlds.
Mixed fleet, with little mass in the A fleet (unless more are expected). If it’s at the expense of F35Bs (TBC i suppose) then undermines carrier strike to an extent. And clearly they are being bought with one purpose in mind, nuclear strike, which I’m not sure is particularly necessary. F35A has a wide array of weaponry unavailable to the B variant, that would have added a lot of options and capability if used for conventional roles.
If we’ve just committed at the NATO summit to the budget going up to 3.5%+ by 2035 then surely a couple dozen more could be procured, in addition to the 27 more F35Bs expected? Why are we talking so big but doing so little? Even our European neighbours are putting us to shame with their purchases (T4 Typhoons for example) even when their rhetoric is a lot more restrained.
Moving to 3.5% is an extra £40bn per year for defence, although that will not come immediately.
12 F35As should cost less than £1bn to purchases (running costs aside). Where is the rest of the money going?