A recent Spectator article, authored by Paul Mason, Marc De Vore, and James Rogers, argues that the UK must consider expanding its nuclear arsenal to address emerging threats from Russia and China.
The piece outlines the increasing risk posed by sub-strategic nuclear weapons, which can be used in smaller, tactical scenarios rather than full-scale strategic strikes.
According to the authors, Russia’s frequent incursions into UK airspace with nuclear-capable bombers highlight the threat, as these aircraft often open their bomb bays, suggesting the potential for nuclear attack.
The writers argue that the UK’s current deterrent, based solely on Trident missiles launched from Vanguard-class submarines, is limited in comparison to the diversified arsenals of other nuclear powers.
The piece also touches on the uncertain reliability of US support, especially with shifting priorities under recent administrations. France has hinted at extending its own nuclear umbrella to European allies, but this could place undue pressure on Paris without British support. In the view of the authors, a more collaborative nuclear posture between the UK and France would strengthen NATO’s collective defence and reassure Eastern European members.
The Spectator article concludes that the Strategic Defence Review (SDR), expected soon, should address the need for more diverse nuclear deterrence options. The authors urge a cross-party consensus to develop theatre-level nuclear weapons as part of a broader strategy to counter Russian and Chinese threats.
For the full analysis and detailed arguments, read the original article on The Spectator.
I can see a Dreadnought design change coming on. How about fitting 16 tubes ?
“Now I become death, the destroyer of words”.
12 missiles are ok as long as each D5 has 8 warheads onboard. Probably need our eNATO allies to fund the UK and Frances nuclear deterrent to cover the whole of eNATO and increase sub numbers by 1-2 more for both RN and France. Having a eNATO 12 ballistic sub fleet is a very respectable deterrent against Mad Vlad and all his cronies.
10 would do very nicely provided uk and France operate an integrated deployment / maintenance / refit schedule ! As Russia has to split its force over 2 Oceans we would actually outgun them by about 40%.
5 submarines in our 2 countries would be great, 6 could be good, taking China in the equation.
France plans 2 additional nuclear squadrons. They should be available with the arrival of Rafale F5 in 2030’s.
The last thing is the re-creation of a ground segment. It is in discussion, a trucks carrying nuclear warhead could be deployed semi permanently in eastern Europe, facing Bielorussia and Kaliningrad.
The anti-balistic threat posed by Russian defences must be taken seriously. If Russia is able to protect it’s territory against our rockets, our arsenal is useless. Remember they where ready to use nuclear warhead on ground to air missile to destroy incoming attacks and compensate for the lack of precision of their interceptors. Now, they have S400, S500. A lot of work has to be done.
It works both ways. During the V-bomber days. There were plans of a dropping a nuke set to airburst, which would generated an large enough EMP to wipe out the rudimentary transistor based systems in the late 70’s and early 80’s. Which would then allow a second bomb to hit the target unmolested. Similarly, they also talked about using a nuke defensively, when surface to air missiles were launched.
Great Britain and France must demand payment to NATO members especially middle and eastern partners…we pay the bill for nuclear deterrent so it’s only right countries chuck in the pot
Poland is more than paying for it by having the largest Army in eNATO. Let’s not go down the Trump style “paymet” narrative.
Way too late for that!
UK and France should probably enlarge our capability to 6 boats each, or invest in an air launched option which, in theory, could be ‘isesedd by allies.
The idea should be floated to European NATO members. Make it a European deterrant. The UK and France have the know how and infrastructure to run it if the rest all chip in and support funding it. It would be cheaper than developing their own weapons.
The problem with a European detterent would be-who would authorise a launch and under what circumstances? A Committee of 30 perhaps?!!!
To be fair Europe already has a solid decision making process for deployment of nukes via NATO.
Remember, Germany, Belgium, Holland and Italy all have tactical nukes.
Whilst the UK used Tornado for Air defence, it was a European nuclear bomber first and foremost.
Having nukes isn’t new for the Europe. France has a better deterrent and clearer published RoE re their use.
Hi R14. I would challenge the statement that those 4 countries have tactical nukes. Can anyone else comment? Also the UK used the Tornado as a below radar and high altitude bomber in numbers. The ADV air defence variant was designed from the original as an interceptor and introduced into the RAF at a later stage.
Hi geoff.
By my understanding, those nuclear bombs were US property cleared for use by NATO Strike aircraft from those nations.
Hi Daniele. Thanks for that info but I doubt they could deploy them without clearance from the Americans? Regards from Durbs
Morning geoff.
Correct, they were B61s stored in those countries that allied aircraft could use if it all kicked off. As US assets of course the US would permit release.
All were stored in US controlled SSAs at airbases in those nations.
Who is going to man them?
We 100% should increase our capability. It’s all part of a deterrent the end of the day, and if building it means we never need to use it then it’s money well spent. The only thing potential aggressors respect is strength.
Agree a storm shadow variant with a 10-20kt warhead would be a useful addition. Something to counter Russia’s proliferation of battlefield and intermediate range missiles.
Could be F35B fired or typhoon. Doesn’t matter which as long as the aircraft can get to drop point.
In addition our trident MIRV warhead numbers need to go back up. Each D5 can in theory deploy 8 warheads so that should be what we aim for.
I’d go for an ALBM in the style of the Israeli Blue/Silver Sparrow, but fitted with a Trident MIRV.
Reduces the likelihood of a conventional strike being mistaken for nuclear, and also would improve solid booster expertise as a lead in for a sovereign Trident replacement.
Great if you have the budget. If not, a Paveway IV body fitted with the non boosted UK version of the W76, with a 7kt yield.
And the US would let us integrate it on F35?
Because a Typhoon, in a nuclear raid context, is never getting close enough to drop Paveway.
It all depends on what else is happening.
Perhaps a nuclear Tomahawk and have the Astutes able to sub in for CASD?
Using the same missile for conventional strike and deterrent can lead to misinterpretetion.
The stormshadow works, indeed, but are we sure it will always go through? Some losses occured over well defended are as.
Never going to happen. We can’t afford aircraft and ships, never mind increasing out deterrent forces
The problem is that we must first say that we must modernize and have a reliable deterrent… it is reliable but when we see our SSBNs that stay at sea for 200 days, it is not acceptable for our country. I think that if we have to increase our size (I am not convinced, let’s start by strengthening our armies…) we must do it with the French by joining the ASN4g program… it would be cheaper and the missile will be very reliable…
I think the article is driving more at acquiring tactical nukes rather than expanding our SSBN, SLBM capability, to give more options.
That means an air launched missile.
Ideally Dreadnaught would be 5 boats but I myself prefer that money spent on our conventional forces, which are hollowed out to a ridiculous degree.
If we are protecting other Euro NATO nations how about them contributing to the cost of CASD?
Agree with you. All this increased nuclear talk shouldn’t be at the expense of building up very needed conventional forces including some high level GBAD infrastructure and means to defend against such an attacks against the UK and Europe mainland.
I agree to a point, mate,
Deterrence is multifaceted and conventional forces are the first line in the deterrent posture. Recent between India and Pakistan has been reported as a conflict between two nuclear countries for good reason. A failure to deter at the conventional force level brings a nuclear exchange very much closer to happening.
However, eNATO is very thin at all levels of deterrence and needs increase numbers and depth (e.g. stockpiles and industrial capability). I think the best way to do this in the shortest possible time is if eNATO countries can agree to some level of specialisation. So each country would prpbably want to maintain a minimum level of over all capability for homeland defence but beyond that each country agrees to focus on certain capabilities. Many on here have suggested that Germany and Poland are best placed to provide heavy land forces, for example, and that we should pick the maritime flank in the North (Eastern) Atlantic with other nations contributing smaller forces. It was how the old Warsaw Pact was run with member states having specialisms they were responsible for, so I see no reason why eNATO couldn’t thrash something out – part from politicians, of course!
Nuclear deterrence because of its unique costs and implications would need to be a special case as only the UK and France can technically develop such weapons, although other allies have experience of having them in their arsenals. So if the UK and France were to be responsible for this level of deterrence there would need to be agreement between the UK and France about future developments around system and operational planning (would the UK move away from US delivery systems being the big question – no chance of that in the short to medium term).
So I think at the strategic level expanding the combined UK France SSBN force from 8 to 10 or 12 boats makes sense, the current fleet size could be rendered ineffective if the 2 boats at sea were ‘taken out’ without warning. Most unlikely given the stealth of the SSBN’s and intelligence capabilties granted, but it is a risk and without the reliable cover from the US trying to take out 2 SSBN’s from two smaller countries is a lot less daunting challenge than trying take out the combined SSBN fleet currently declared to NATO if only because the US is involved. The reward / risk balance might be sufficiently favourable in Putin’s eyes for him to give it a try, especially as he would be in a very deep bunker!
At the tactical level I would suggest that there would need to be agreement between the UK and France on what they could develop together. SailorBoy makes an interests suggestion above about using an Air Launched BM similar to the Israeli systems. With Tempest on the horizon eNATO would have an aeroplane capable of delivering such a weapon.
Nuclear Deterrent costs would need to be shared. If we agree that the current European Nuclear Deterrents are sufficient for to meet national needs, with the current NATO context, any further increase would need to be met by the wider eNATO. Commonality between UK, French and eNATO deployed systems would reduce unit costs. As I say above the politics would be the tricky bit, but the increase in Nuclear deterrence should not be at the expense, at least in cost terms, of our need to fix our hollowed out conventional forces which also goes for most of our allies in eNATO.
For clarity, I don’t think the above has a cat in hells chance of happening despite the obvious and intensifying need.
By the way, if Putin does agree to peace in Ukraine he will turn is eyes somewhere else in Europe and then eNATO will be facing the very real risk of conflict with Russia with in the next 5 to 10 years. Regardless of what folk on here think about the likely outcome of such a conflict, deterrence will have failed and so will our political elite.
Cheers CR
Hi CR,
To clarify on the ALBM point:
Israel has three sizes of air launched ballistic missile; Black, Blue and Silver Sparrow. Black and Blue are for F15 and F16 launch, but Silver may be limited to C130 launch only. Black only has a range of 800km and Silver is 8.5m long, so those can be discarded. But Blue is approximately the same size as FC/ASW will be (6.5m) and weighs 1900kg, both of which theoretically place it within the realms of Tempest internal carriage. However, the body diameter is reported to be 530mm, which is too fat even for Tempest unless most of the fuselage is given over to weapons bays. The range is 1000km with 150kg warhead and terminal speed of Mach 5.
We could cut down the motor diameter and sacrifice range to fit internal carriage, but then the standoff distance and terminal speed become comparable with high supersonic cruise missiles, so the point of the ballistic missile is to prevent confusion between the RJ10 FC/ASW and the nuclear weapon, or simply to gain expertise in preparation for a larger SLBM.
I think if we genuinely want an air launched sub-strategic nuclear weapon, a hypersonic cruise missile is really the only option.
BTW not suggesting we could buy Israeli missiles, just using their expertise in the area as a benchmark for the design.
Thanks for the extra details.
The P-8 bomb bay might be big enough. There were suggestions years ago that the Nimrod could be used as a launch platform for long range stand off weapons. However, the cost of clearing weapon onto the P-8 would probably be a show stopper.
Your point about the need to have significantly different flight profile for nuclear and conventional weapons is a sensible one but cruise missiles were originally nuclear tipped.
Cheers CR
CR,
The era when missiles were designed with dual conventional/nuclear warhead options was at a point when conventional wars between states were planned simply not to exist. With the whole Putin/Israel/India-Pakistan situation, mistakes have to be avoided at all costs, even with a sacrifice in capability.
Can you imagine if in the recent skirmishes, India had fired dual warhead missiles at Pakistan?
Specialism worked for the Warsaw Pact, as it was led by the Soviet Union, who imposed their will on how things were to be done or else! NATO is a smorgasbord of Nations, each with their own agenda and perhaps cannot always be relied upon when the SHTF.
I do believe we need a second nuclear option, primarily to deal with rogue states or groups who have acquired a nuke and use it against us or one of our dependencies. But which could also be used as per France’s ASMP as part of a tiered response.
Hi DaveyB,
Yeh, I am aware that the Soviet Union called the shots in the Warsaw Pact and that the politics in NATO is rather less straightforward 🙂
Hence, why I said I don’t any of my identified ‘needs’ have a cats in hells chance of ever happening or at least not in time anyway.
I guess if we see anything akin to my suggestions actually happening it would be time to head for somewhere really remote, Saint Helena perhaps..!
Cheers CR
Hi M8, I think it’s time to just sit back and let this week go by. It’s crunch time with Ukraine and it all hinges on Trump does he back European partners demand for an unconditional ceasefire with sanctions and increased military aid to Ukraine or allow Putin to run a steamroller over them at fa e to fac3 talks.
That and this HMG ARE actually announcing the SDR this week which will be either a game changer with a real uplift in spending /capabilities or an underwhelming Political / Treasury lead fudge with more jam tomorrow, wait for new tech garbage.
These 2 events pretty well dictate the agenda for the big UK – EU summit in London on the 19th and that is mainly about security, defence and cooperation. It may be we put in a contribution to the new Defence fund but if it means our industry can compete and we get some crack for CASD that could be a game changer. Europe knows they can’t rely on the US anymore, they have all signed the NPT and know they can’t demand control, but from what I hear UK / France being funded to increase the CASD and develop other Tactical Nuclear weapons is very much on the table.
We shall see.
SDR, by past history, will have the following.
1. Lots of spin about “agile” “rationalizing” and “world leading”
2. Jam / carrot tomorrow with high tech aplenty which will be paid for by cuts now.
3. Later, said Jam is reduced, carrot removed, but Joe public will have forgotten by then. Of course, the cuts won’t be reversed.
4. Treasury led, not threat or military capability/need, led.
5. Vague on real detail. I’m hearing much won’t be announced till the Autumn. Irritating for ORBAT nerds like myself who want to analyse internal changes in the Army in particular, which needs to reorganise but is not allowed to increase its establishment.
6. Endless comments about 2.5% and 3% while ignoring, by design, what that money is ACTUALLY SPENT ON, inflation, and what goes on conventional forces.
7. Emphasis on industry rather than military capability and numbers, as always.
Politicians. All words, spin, and nothing else. Starmer is no different. HMT have no interest in defence. Healey has stopped all the “hollowed out” talk, but was keen the other day to mention how we are getting to 2.5% early, years before the Tories planned to, all part of the plan.
Cobblers, they did that as Trump held a flame to their feet, previously Labour had no intention to do anything of the sort this Parliament.
When I’m subsequently shown to be wrong I’ll be here delighted to be so. However, getting some money from European NATO nations towards CASD would indeed be of immense help.
That does not translate into any command authority or operational control from those nations though,
That, and HMT policy, are the greatest elephants in the defence room.
I’ve sat through Front Line First in 1995, the SDR in 1997, the SDR New Chapter around 2004, SDSR 2010, and all the rest. All the same.
Cynical, I’m sorry.
This isn’t just cynicism. Much of it is realism. Everyone wants to talk about the aspect of prioritisation that means we spend more money on X, but nobody is willing to talk about the other half of the discussion, about getting shut of Y to pay for it. Nocody wants to stand for parliament on a manifesto of cutting a third of the surface fleet ships. They just let it happen.
Want to spend more money on nuclear? Even if we got the other European countries to buy in they wouldn’t provide 100%. We’d end up paying for some of that and even though it would mean overall more money flowing into HMT through taxes, that wouldn’t be reflected in the top line number, the 2.3% of GDP that goes into Defence. So it would mean the further hollowing out of conventional UK military capability. Until we get senior military leadership to understand that prioritising includes explicitly ditching the stuff that we “want less”, we’ll continue to hollow out our capability unplanned.
I’m expecting the SDR to destroy even more conventional expeditionary defence to pay for conventional home defence. We have no choice but to wait and see.
Hi Jon.
Re your last paragraph, I suggested thus myself months ago, a great fear of mine.
You can see it coming.
We’d be even more hamstrung than we are already.
did not Boris Johnson increase our nuclear warheads. or did i misread it.
He didn’t increase the number of warheads, just the self-imposed limit of them that we can have.
That’s actually the same thing as we now have more warheads.
Yes I believe he did.
However, it was for the specific purpose of allowing some head room in the numbers for them to bring a new warhead design into service. The original idea was that the number would reduce again which I full expect them to do as any increase in warhead numbers would require consider expense would build the warheads and probably reestablish the storage capacity. It’s not as if you can store the damn things do the back of the sofa!
Cheers CR
Hi… I have read a few articles that seem to suggest the UK now has around 250 Nuclear warheads. If that is true, that’s an increase from around 225. But of course there are varying articles out there, so not sure how accurate those details are to be fair.
It’s correct it’s also why there is a massive level of investment in the sites at Aldermaston, Burghfield and others. Our facilities were basically clapped out and bordering on unsafe. But it also increases our capacity to produce new weapons as well as maintain the existing ones.
There’s massive investment because we privatised it, at which point shareholders took money out. Now it’s been renationalised we need to put lots of money back in to make it work.
This wishful thinking is too late sadly. Successive governments have removed our defence across Europe and unfortunately we do not have time to rebuild significantly or quickly enough to deter what is coming.
We have to try, I understand that after all it’s human instinct to ignore reality in the hope it will not happen. I’m sure the top contributors on here are more than aware of the above. We will fight with what we have. We will have no choice.
To those that put the country in this position- you were warned by Obama 9 years ago that it would be wise to start spending on defence properly. You ignored him. Now we will all pay the price for your redirecting defence spending to other things.
Daft as it sounds increasing Europe Nuclear deterrent isn’t down to pure overall numbers, it’s possible to increase the deployed deterrence force by 50% with little or no expenditure.
That may sound fanciful but it’s 100% true, between UK and France we have 8 SSBN boats, if each Navy operates as an independent force they can each have 1 boat deployed at a time. However if they realign the deployment, training, refit and maintenance schedules as a single entity you can deploy 3 at a time. That may not sound a lot but 48 SLBM deployed probably outguns Russia.
Yup, that should be the first step, once we get our Nuclear Sub maintenance backlog fixed and buy those floating docks to prevent it happening again in the future..!
Cheers CR
The UK does have a weakness around its nuclear deterrent,
1) it needs to move it submarine based strategic deterrent from around 30-40 odd warheads per SSBN to around 100 per sub, essentially bringing it in line with France.. for that it needs to move from around 120 deployed ( 3 sets of 40) to around 300 ( three sets of 100) this would allow if there was massive tension to maybe have 200 warheads at sea as a strategic deterrent..and that will work as Russia or china would not survive that as a functional nation. For 300 deployed warheads you would want around 400 total.
2) a sub strategic option..I don’t think we should engage in the tactical nuclear game but we do need a final sub strategic warning shot..basically a “ in the next move we kill everyone warning”. This is needed because of the Russia belief in the escalation to deescalate paradigm, in which they fully believe that to move someone from a MAD exchange you hit them with a none strategic attack.. Russia would be betting that the UK would not expose its SSBNs to respond to a limited nuclear attack with another limited attack ( the RN would not expose the SSBNs and risk losing the strategic deterrent to fire just one or two warheads ), therefore there is a massive hole in the nuclear deterrent.. if Russia thinks we would not go fully MAD and kill everyone over a single nuclear weapon attack and knows we could not risk the SSBNs to fire a single missile, then it may just escalate to deescalate and drop a nuclear weapon on the UK or its forces. So we need to be able to fire a sub strategic response ( 1-4 strategic size warheads at 1-2 targets) as a deterrent and also if they go insane and do attack with a nuclear warhead as a final desperate warning before we go MAD. This should be an air launched weapon.. as the French have and its should be around 20-40 weapons in total.. ( for 2 sites with 10-15 weapons each.. so enough for 2 squadrons).
So all in all the UK should be aiming for around 450 warheads.. 300 deployed on SSBNs and 20-30 deployed in squadrons.
Current published ceiling of the UK nuclear warhead stockpile is 260, per 2021 SDR guidance (always subject to future revision by HMG).
Upper bound of each Dreadnought’s capacity will be 88 warheads (12 D5 – 1 D5 reserved training round) * 8 warheads/D5 =. 88 warheads. For a variety of valid operational reasons, the maximum load out will be less. Would presume that at least two Dreadnoughts could be deployed on CASD during the early operational phase of the class, given adequate warning of impending hostilities.
UK acquisition of SLCM-N system for SSN-A would be one rational option for a tactical weapon capability. Uncertain re future FMS pricing under the tender mercies of Uncle Sugar’s MIC.
Stand-off air launched weapons for the RAF (e.g. LRSO FC/ASW, etc. ) are another option for deployment on Typhoon, F-35A and eventually GCAP/Tempest. Robust GBAD for MOB(s) would be recommended. Airborne alert would always be an option during a crisis and aircraft are recallable before PCTAP broached. Dunno, always deemed that to be an attractive feature as a nation approaches the abyss. Evidently, not a currently fashionable concept.
And where are you going to get all the extra resources from, it’s an interesting little fact that the U.K. and US supply each other with certain materials and some of those are finite. Even if we produced more ourselves it would be a massive investment and take a couple of decades to getvupmtomthat number.
5 RN SSBN each with 48 warheads (plus decoys) and 5 MN SSBN each with 64 warheads if coordinated on a joint schedule provides a peacetime CASD of 3/4 boats so (160 to 224 warheads). That’s a very big stick and that’s not including a surge capacity !
So 300 for UK would do just fine.
Personally if I were MOD I’d be asking BAe if a 4th CMC can be fitted to some of the Dreadnoughts or retrofitted.
Umm…dunno, you may have more experience w/ BAES as a prime, but to some outside observers MoD/RN would appear to be in an inferior negotiation position at this point, due to potential schedule slippage and cost growth issues in Dreadnought Class baseline programme. Would suggest consideration of a 4th CMC as a mid-life tech insertion.
Recall what happened when Vanguard had a mid-life capability insert? It isn’t practical. The only feasible option to expand capability at this stage is to plan a fifth boat. With all the knock on impacts on SSN-A.
I don’t think there is any such thing as a limited none strategic nuclear attack.
Agreed. The idea of re-introducing theatre-level nuclear bombs is the most stupid idea I’ve seen in years. Proposing to reduce the nuclear threshold to engage in posturing of this sort is highly irresponsible.
In September 2024, The Spectator was acquired by British investor Paul Marshall, owner of UnHerd and a major investor in the unprofitable GB News.
Have you got your nuclear bunker ready Mr Marshall? The rest of us haven’t
… and Michael Gove is the current editor of the Spectaor.
Levelling up.
A moron who should be ignored.
Gullible or stupid, pick one.
Perhaps, w/ detonation of 1-4 tactical nukes w/ miniimum explosive settings, but agreed, once firebreak is breached, all bets are off. 😱
UK should join France in a joint program to expand their nuclear arsenals via 2 approaches
1. Develop a land based system using the French SLBM M5 series of missiles. Make them launchable from Truck and rail transportable containers. So the launch container can be towed by a truck or moved onto a railway flatbed wagon. This system avoids the costly construction of silos and also being mobile makes tracking the missiles harder for an adversary.
2. As suggested earlier by a contributor in the form, get the French to agree to joining UK in building are Vulcan sized semi-stealth bomber based on the Tempest platform or new large tailess delta winged aircraft (old Vulcan design with vertical tail removed, engine intakes and redesigned for lower radar cross section), powered by 3 uprated Eurojet EJ200 engines, the avionic taken from Tempest program or Typhoon with bomb bay capable of carrying 4 of the upcoming 1,000 mile range French nuclear armed stand-off missiles.
Essentially expand the nuclear deliver systems on the cheap. Submarines cost a lot to build and maintain, silos also cost a lot to build and maintain. I think my suggestion is a lot cheaper with an adaptation of the existing French M53 SLBM for launch from truck or train mobile systems costing in the region of a couple of billion pounds in R&D and tens of millions of pounds per unit to produce. With the bomber, using as many existing off the self components or planned procurements, I don’t think the R&D costs should exceed two billion pounds and the unit acquisition cost of each bomber should be no more tha two hundred million pounds per unit. 50 bombers with and acquisition of 200 hundred of the French air launched missiles and 50 land launched M53 missiles should more than suffice especially with each M53 missile carry 8 warheads as in the SLBM versions.
One question remains: why the French agree to such a program? From a French standpoint, after 50 years of investments, it’s Time for payoff.
France needs to also increase its nuclear forces so this will be a way of sharing the cost of developing the requisite delivery forces in the form of a land based missile and a long range bomber. it also prepares the way for possible Anglo-French next generation SBLM/ICBM post the Dreadnought SSBN and the French SNLE-3G programs. Finally the French have been calling for a more Europe centric defence programming in light of increasing unreliability of the USA in the NATO alliance.
The approach suggested by me allows for a pan-European nuclear umbrella where Europe can start to share the cost of nuclear delivery systems while preventing nuclear proliferation across the EU. EU countries under UK and French leadership can share in the costs (R&D, production and procurement) of these delivery systems while UK and France keep control of the nuclear weapons development and production. I can see a situation, as currently prevails in NATO, where certain EU members are allowed to get access to these delivery systems to operate under a joint European command.
Don’t get me wrong, i’m totally in favor of anglo/french cooperation but our british friends should recall the 5th republic has been built with nukes in mind and nukes have been developped so no 1940 again. It Will take a lot of convincing to share any capabilities on that (at leadtnon an equal foot).
*at least on
The French expertise that we need is in the ballistic missile production, that the UK can’t do.
But the warheads and reentry vehicles we can do ourselves, and they are the expensive bit.
Russian bombers regularly penetrating UK airspace? Really? I thought the QRA prevented that.
The last warplane that we had which could intercept Russian bumbers over the Baltic or the N Sea was the excellent Tornado F3 ADV. The last of them were scrapped after the malign 2010 SDSR. The last operational Tornado F3s in RAF service were retired when No. 111 (F) Squadron at RAF Leuchars was disbanded in March 2011
Surely the tranche 1 Typhoon F2s, sadly being scrapped prematurely at the moment, had the same long-range interception capability as the Tornado ADV?
You are of course correct about the T1 Typhoon range. My opinion on the Tornado F3 is influenced by a book that I recently read on it.
The F3 lacked maneuverability and poor high altitude performance was a long-standing problem, which at one time resulted in a proposal to fit EJ200 engines. On the other hand, it was generally liked by its crews, had good low level performance, had an enviable safety record and in its final incarnation – with the improved radar, JTIDS, AMRAAM and ASRAAM – was a first-rate interceptor. Like all Tornado variants, it was built like a brick shithouse and the bomber version was affectionately known as “Tonka” by it’s crews in Iraq. I believe the German Luftwaffe still fly them
The ADV variant, F2 then F3 was meant to patrol the large area of the UKADR, and did it well.
I understand its performance was better than officially acknowledged as well.
7 Squadrons of them, 2 at Coningsby, 2 at Leuchars, and 3 at Leeming, all thrown under the bus by successive governments from the late 90s onwards.
My fav fast in my teens when I started studying this subject.
Can’t prevent them, all we can do is escort them so that air traffic control have a transponder to follow and prevent collisions.
They don’t enter UK airspace they get intercepted when they enter the UK area of interest – still international airspace.
Redefining our nuclear doctrine requires a forward looking approach to dealing with technological threats that are yet to exist. I commend the commentators logical thinking for investing in our current strategic deterrents, unfortunately, these, as said, require
Modernisation and a move away from US assisted technology & support.
The UK will never been involved in a large scale land war single-handedly as we are no longer in that tier of military force. We must be realistic about our country size and what we can achieve with our own resources and budget.
Investment into SRBM & MRBM for multiple launchers is paramount to a new doctrine. The use of low detection style missile with an adjustable payload and the ability to be fired from air, land and sea but British made, should have been done forty years ago.
Additionally to this, our space denial deterrence is nonexistent and requires immediate attention.
Nuclear weapons haven’t deterred various enemies from attacking Israel but they have probably limited the damage they have tried to inflict before a nuclear counter strike would be considered. Would a second, non strategic nuclear weapon, enhance the UKs deterrence of a Russian attack? Probably not, given Moscow’s lack of concern about casualties. So a better approach, preserving the MAD doctrine, would be to increase the power and number of Trident missiles and warheads.
Adding a longer range non nuclear missile ( FCASW?) capable of putting at risk vital Russian assets – power stations, air and naval bases – would, by being more likely to be used, be a more effective deterrent than a nuclear weapon.
The possibility of the UK bringing a new sovereign warhead design into service in anything less than 10 years is fantastically remote.
The design, materials, tooling, production line, safety case, assurance of delivery are all too difficult with the current way of doing things.
Actually we are deploying a new warhead / MIRV for Trident at the moment. They are actually quite small these days being in the low kiloton range of yield so might be possible to fit to other smaller delivery systems.
Cheers CR
How about building 5 or 6 Dreadnoughts instead of the usual 4 SSBNs. That way 2 could be kept at sea and maybe in times of war/political tension maybe 3 or 5 at sea for CASD. Building at least 1 additional boat would reduce patrol times for the crews instead of the ridiculous patrol times that have been seen recently for SSBN crew.
We have enough nukes to wipe out the world. We dont need more nukes, maybe new delivery systems. Air-defence has got to be top priority.
We don’t even have enough nukes to be certain of destroying Moscow. The world? Unless by “we” you include US and Russia, that’s so far from the truth it’s laughable.
It doesn’t need expanding and I’d say if anything I’m quite happy that they don’t actually work properly because we haven’t had a decent set of politicians since the 80s.
If they don’t work then the EU cannot persuade us to use them, after they spent thirty years trying to get control of them and our security council seat that we do not deserve nor does France or the USA.
United Nations Security Council seat confirms the top tier nuclear powers.
Jaw jaw better than war.
One question remains: why on earth France agree to share capabilities with uk (especially on the air segment)?
Because it vindicates their view that independence from USA is required and confirms France at the heart of Europe in a leadership role.
Vive La France 🇫🇷
France and Britain should seriously consider giving Germany some of our nuclear expertise and knowledge to make her own deterrent.
With everything supplied Germany should be able to produce missiles with warheads within a year. This nuclear triumvirate would represent a formidable force in NATO.
With all the comments so far, everyone should know, under NO CIRCUMSTANCES is Britain using NUKES to protect or defend any parts of Europe. British Nukes are exactly deployed for the protection of the British Kingdom ONLY. That’s the only time they can use Nukes is to defend Britain only.
France “”may be inclined to defend European nations with their Nukes, only in the best interest of France. Their policy is very similar to the British Nukes policy minus one thing – France and France ONLY has total power to use their own Nukes whenever and where ever. BRITISH use of Nukes is tied to the USA as they need authorization to use them if NOT to defend their homeland.
The Britih nuclear deterrent is totally operationally independant. Britain.also constructs her own nuclear submarines and nuclear warheads. That’s a fact.
I think there is an argument for arming the UK F35B with tactical nukes or adding nuke tipped tomahawks to our SSNs… the F35 would be best as it is already nuke capable. It would also give a level of backup to the CASD. I think we should look into replacing
Trident with a domestic alternative in the linger term. We have seen that the US can be unpredictable and that is not a good thing when they provide your delivery system for your deterrent.
The delivery system needs amerucan servicing every other year in a perfect world, however whilst on patrol or in warfare our nuclear submarines can remain at sea for months on end- even years wthout any USA input at all. What you suggest about Trident is a good idea
Sorry to say it is clear we must, we must also diversify, different delivery methods and different missiles. We should make some of our own, we should use some french, we should not rely on the USA. Most obviously in this day and age we should have some pointed at everyone, including the USA, we can’t these days trust anyone