Two F-35A Lightning aircraft recently released dummy B61-12 nuclear bombs during the F-35A’s first ‘Full Weapon System Demonstration’, completing the final flight test exercise of the nuclear design certification process.

“Once airborne, test pilots flew to the Tonopah Test Range and released two B61-12 JTAs from operationally realistic flight envelopes. This event was the first release of the most representative B61-12 test asset from an operationally-representative F-35A.”

The U.S. Air Force say in a news release that the 422d and 59th Test and Evaluation Squadrons led Air Combat Command’s portion of the test effort, with Airmen from the 57th Aircraft Maintenance Squadron, 926th Aircraft Maintenance Squadron and Bolt Aircraft Maintenance Unit leading all maintenance efforts.

“The B61 series weapons are tactical gravity nuclear weapons that can be used on Dual Capable Aircraft like the F-15E and F-16C/D,” said Lt. Col Daniel Jackson, division chief, Headquarters ACC Strategic Deterrence and Nuclear Integration.

“Having a 5th Generation DCA fighter aircraft with this capability brings an entirely new strategic-level capability that strengthens our nation’s nuclear deterrence mission.”

The nuclear certification is broken into two phases: nuclear design certification and nuclear operational certification. This test is considered the graduation flight test exercise for the F-35A nuclear design certification and concludes on-aircraft testing for the initial nuclear certification effort. The test data received from this event is currently under analysis and review by the Department of Defense and Department of Energy to ensure the F-35A and B61-12s performed correctly throughout all phases of the operation.

“The B-2 bomber was the prominent nuclear capable stealth aircraft,” said Jackson.

“Adding ‘nuclear capable’ to a 5th-Gen fighter that already brings several conventional-level capabilities to the table adds strategic-level implication to this jet.”

The U.S. Air Force stressed that no date has been released for full F-35A nuclear certification in support of real-world operations.

“The successful completion of this test covers a critical part of the nuclear certification process and ensures the F-35A will remain on track for future timelines. Not all aircraft will become nuclear-capable upon full certification in support of real-world operations. Only those units with a nuclear mission will be given the hardware and manpower necessary to configure and maintain nuclear capable F-35s.”

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

79 COMMENTS

  2. None – Since 2006 the US hasn’t based any of their nuclear weapons in the UK. US nuclear forces in Europe are based in Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, Italy and Turkey, but not the UK.

  3. I take it that pilot survivability is also factored into the Flight plan if not , is it a case Rock, Paper,scissors, spock. For squadron pilots ?

  4. None. They were withdrawn from Lakenheath and not heard they’d been reintroduced.

    I’m not aware of any SSA at Fairford, as no aircraft are based there.

    Welford stores non nuclear bombs.

      • They were at Lakenheath. Withdrawn 2009 time I recall? Look at any SSA ( Special Storage Area ) at RAF stations or USAF bases. SSA are the higher security storage areas for nukes. Double or even triple fenced, lit throughout, dead zoned, cameras on every pole, you’ll soon deduce if they’re occupied with weapons.

        RAF ones are all mostly Cold War relics now but some are occasionally used for Trident warheads.

        Google Earth is your friend for this. It’s surprising what you can find regards high security locations within bases if you know where to look.

          • That was true of the now defunct RAF Bentwaters no wonder why the Aliens were interested in the early 80ts Rendlesham mysterious Lights seen on different nights, Or the Lighrhouse beam , But yes Reaper armed guards in towers

          • If it was the lighthouse beam, which has been there for hundreds of years, then why is it not seen every night?

            And how did the beam make indentations in the ground, fly around sky and trees, land, and cause the base commander, Col Charles Holt, to document what he and his men were seeing on cassette tape?

            Mad? Hallucinating? So why then does he get promoted and posted to a GLCM site in Italy?

            The official MoD response, which came out via the US FOIA, not ours – “no defence significance”

            Total bull.

          • Sorry I Only put that in as a side dit so one would Know where Bentwaters was and that it had held Nuclear weapons triple fencing and watchtowers I’m no Nick Pope MOD UFO investigater of the 80ts anything like the Rendlesham mystery ,so to me it will remain a mystery I’m not one too believe or disbelieve but thanks for your in depth response Daniele

          • That’s Ok! Don’t apologise, I was only expanding. That is another, somewhat controversial, interest of mine.

          • I take it you like The Blaze channel on chl 164 I sometimes take a peek at the programmes it shows Daniele

          • No, never seen it. I was a ufologist in the 90s. Nowadays our military is my main interest.

      • It would seem that in A-Sort-of Previous Existence I Had As A Cycle Tourist In the 1980s, I would seem to Recollect Going Through Glen Douglas Proper amongst a Group of Fellow Cycling Youth Hostelling Companions having departed from the Nowadays-Non-Existent Ardgartan Youth Hostel that was located near but beyond the MOD Jetty found Westbound after Arrochar en route to Inveraray YH.

        VERY High Security and for Extremely Good Reasons, “Of That” Absolutely No Doubt About It, It would seem.

        Our Lunchtime Halt, I would seem to remember, Before the Steep Descent to Loch Lomond-side and The Glen Douglas Inn Just-off the A82, If heading directly for Glen Falloch and Crianlarich

    • Jay and your suggestion of Carriers carry Nukes up until the early 90ts Carriers carried NDCs in the deep mag , Hms Illustrious was asked to leave Grand harbour Malta after their government was made aware that She was carry Nuclear weapons, when ever a Carrier deployed marines would be embarked as Sercurity if Nukes were to be reintroduced too Carriers not many ports would welcome their presents

      • Every RN vessel , FF and DD was capable of carrying. However the only vessels designated for permanent as opposed to time of tension carriage , where the CVS, T22 and some RFAs.

        It was a pain in the butt when you carried a bucket of sunshine. 2 man rules, restricted access to areas, all of the certification to work with the things, where to stow all of the test equipment and prep gear.

        As a back endy I was overjoyed when they where withdrawn. At least then I could use the armoured dog kennel weapon stowage’s to keep the regular No 4 Torpedo Trolleys in and not have the space wasted by a No 2 Trolley. It made moving regular weapons around so much easier.

        • Broadsword and Brilliant in the SA in 82 I believe? Plus the carriers.
          Weren’t some removed onto RFAs in the Gib area?

          • My First Draft ,Hermes 76 bomb lifts we did have an incident down in the deep mag in of all places Malta , bought under control Faulty Alarm but boy did protocols come into action, PDQ

          • The WE177 NDB had the option for it to be fission boosted so it had a bottle of rather expensive tritium in it for injecting into the pit during detonation. With the tritium going in then you got a big bang… With no tritium going in it was a smaller bang. In effect it was a dial-able yeild weapon which was selected prior to flight.

            The same weapon could also have its use selected for either sub surface, surface or air burst. 1 weapon… 3 uses.

            If the tritium leaked then that set off the alarms so the mag needed to have the air inside purged with fresh.

            There would be no alarms if the core became exposed, (not that it would or could anyway) , because the fissile core material was a solid lump not gas and the alarm only sniffed for gas.

          • What was stated at the time Gunbuster was a faulty Alarm maybe it was maybe it wasn’t One can only guess Protocols were in place if your name wasn’t on the List then you informed I just operated lifts not deep lift clearence

    • Currently, the F-35 B would need modifications to the Bombay to fit the bomb internally. The USMC F-35Bs will not receive theirs until the Block 4 software upgrade has been finalised and installed from memory.

      From the horse’s mouth. March 2021

      “We found the F-35 program is now 3 years into Block 4 modernization development and the program continues to experience cost increases and schedule expansion.

      Costs continued to rise during 2020 due to delays in schedule and challenges in developing certain technologies, among other things. In 2020, the program added a year to its Block 4 schedule and now expects to extend Block 4 development into fiscal year 2027.

      We found, however, that the program office did not formulate its revised schedule based on the contractor’s demonstrated past performance. Instead, the schedule is based on estimates formulated at the start of the Block 4 effort, increasing the likelihood that the scheduled 2027 completion date is not achievable.

      https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-21-226.pdf

    • And China in the SCS isn’t poking its nose into others backyards?
      Based on what exactly – an old map of a 1492 expedition or such. Presumably the 1492 fleet also went to Antarctica as the Chinese base there was set up on Australian Antarctic Territory without any permission by the Australia Govt. Alternative reality at work here I feel.

    • I can’t find the purpose of these bombs. Gravity way is not fit for strategic payload. And can someone confirm me that the F35 can bring this on internal bay? Because with external bay it will not be stealth anymore..
      Air to ground missiles are by far better designed for this purpose..

    • Wasn’t Storm Shadow originally planned for a stand-off nuclear role in the 90’s? While we don’t have warheads for them (apparently), I wonder if they could be assembled and placed on Storm Shadow quickly in a crisis. It would explain the large inventory of missiles.

  7. The problem with tactical nuclear weapons is it gives the illusion of a limited nuclear exchange, which increases the possibility of a nuclear war. The whole point of the U.K. deterrent is that if you cross the line you get the whole strategic deterrent down on you and your not sure what the line is before you don’t have a county anymore.

    if we had tactical weapons an opponent could gamble that using a tactical nuclear weapon against the U.K. would get a tactical response, not a strategic one.

    • True. But providing the costs aren’t excessive I’d still rather have tac nukes available if required for UK forces. We at least have an alternative to strategic launch if needed and we can still be publicly ambiguous as to our response if we were subject to a limited mass destruction attack.

    • Especially if a supposed tactical weapon is used against a strategic target (SSBN), does that tactical weapon become a strategic weapon?

      • Interesting question.

        Just muddying the waters more, I believe some current MIRV on Trident D5 have much lower, almost tactical level yields.

        It’s the accuracy that is most important, as even the lower yield will take out command bunkers and other deeply buried C3 targets. Yamantau and Kosvinsky mountains possibly excepted.

        Which is why you have B2 and the burrowing bunker busters.

        The Russians, like the Soviets before them keep their Bombers in bastions north of Russia, and under the arctic ice. So I cannot imagine they would be targets for anything other than a trailing SSN with conventional torpedoes.

    • JOHNATHAN Hope the yanks don’t also look into that old battlefield Decimater The DAVey Crocket Field artillery piece along with Gravity Small yield bombs both would be for Tactical use rather than a strategic one .Ok right the Davey Crocket is a Non Starter ,But you never know what those in the Pentagon have ideas for the possible relandscaping of our Eastern European Allies countryside If putin keeps up his Cold War rhetoric about the West as he has since 2018

      • To be honest it’s one of the more worrying elements of where we are at In shared geopolitical culture. The P5 stance around nuclear ambiguity has really hardened and the only P5 state with any plan to reduce nuclear ambiguity has give up ( that’s the U.K.) and has changed its nuclear stance to an ambitious set of statements and refusal to publish in information on stockpile and deployed numbers. Most people don’t realise it but we are really slipping back in having an increased chance of a nuclear exchange. This is because the potential success of nuclear ambiguity in preventing/reducing the chance of war between the P5 is….shall we say ambiguous.

        kings college did a great paper on this that’s well worth the read.

        • Thank you Johnathan, if there is a link to Kings I’ll have a read, And yes the fact that gone are the Days of Nuclear proliferation and SALT diplomacy of the Cold War where only The US and the USSR resolved their differences over the table but continued their Proxy wars . The World has moved on and the Nuclear Club has grown , The threatening Rhetoric coming fro m the East and Far East seems too be quite alarming.As many of the people on this Thread will agree I just hope ,that in the corridors of Power these statements from either Putin (dictator) and CHINA have not fallen upon deaf ears, It doesn’t Cost too Listen and prepare ,But it does cost after the Fact if you did not Listen and prepare.

      • It was said the US nuclear weapons developers could of made a nuclear hand Grenade, the only problem was finding someone stupid enough to throw it

  8. I’m not sure I’m keen on this. I understand it may be a necessity but in a hot environment it would seem very easy for the enemy to mistake a tactical strike for a conventional one. Doesn’t this just make the deployment of these aircraft under “normal” conditions more risky?

    • My take on it is that in War all options should be on the table, but saying that this Weapon would have more reason for use against an Iran say rather than a Russia or China.

  9. As I understand it the B61-12 was needed as the older versions were heading towards their use by dates. As a result the new B61 version had to be validated on its carrier platforms some of which were no longer around and replacements were needed, hence the F-35A tests. Incidentally causing a debate in Germany as to what should replace the Tornado with the US insisting on a US aircraft, F-18, not a Typhoon.
     
    The B61-12 has a ‘dial-in’ yield and we have to assume Russian have the same, making it potentially difficult to differentiate between a ‘strategic’ or ‘tactical’ attack especially where the target might be regarded as either merely by timing or the launch platform.
     
    Germany was always likely to be the destination of many to blunt an out of control assault going in either direction. Putin has said that that they will release tactical weapons as soon as any attack was on Russian soil, partly due to their no longer having the eastern Europe buffer areas, and that those weapon’ targets will not be limited to the local battlefield areas. AFAIK no similar NATO red line has been announced, no doubt due to the political sensitivity in the European towns/countries affected and the impact on NATO itself.

    • That was the primary reason why Germany has gone for a mixed Typhoon/F18 buy. Eurofighter showed a two seat variant that would have been nuclear capable. But the US pretty much refused, on the basis of qualifying the aircraft to carry their nuke. Why qualify it when we already have the F18 qualified, even though the Typhoon is a better aircraft?

      • Davey , two pilot rule , is what I thought was the Norm if carrying a Nuclear device not one pilot errors could arise if its just one pilot ?

        • Special Network control may come into play with the F-35, unlike previous gens of aircraft. A ground commander could activate a warpon, maybe?

          • If not,Meirion then a psychological profile of a pilot would have too be done on something of a monthly basis Can’t have one man/woman off into the wild blue yonder with a weapon like that , unless systems for Arming can be done as you suggested from the ground whilst the plane is Airbourne and at Targets coordinates

  11. The American Colonies of UK, Germany and EU NATO Poodles are putting their people at extreme peril. Western Europe is much more densly populated than Western Russia. Millions of Europeans will be burned to Charcoal. F35s have been completely outflown by F16s. The American Empire wants Russias Nuclear Deterrant Neutralised by F35 carrying B61-12 Bombs, on its Borders. The American Joint Chiefs Megalomaniacs will be believing that they could Win a Nuclear War with Russia. Wall Street want the threat of Nuclear Defeat for Russia to get it`s Bloody Hands on Siberian Oil and Gas.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here