Nuclear strike training flights will take place over Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, the United Kingdom and the North Sea. No live weapons will be used.

NATO will launch its annual nuclear exercise, Steadfast Noon, beginning on 14 October 2024.

This routine training exercise involves over 60 aircraft, including fighter jets capable of carrying U.S. nuclear warheads, although no live weapons are used.

The exercise is designed to maintain the readiness and effectiveness of NATO’s nuclear deterrent, a critical component of the Alliance’s defence strategy.

This year’s drills are focused on airspace over Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, the United Kingdom, and the North Sea, with participation from 13 NATO Allies.

The exercise, which runs for two weeks, includes a variety of aircraft such as nuclear-capable jets, bombers, fighter escorts, refuelling aircraft, and planes equipped for reconnaissance and electronic warfare. Around 2,000 military personnel are involved, operating from eight airbases.

The planning for Steadfast Noon began a year ago, reflecting NATO’s commitment to strategic preparedness. This year marks a notable development as Dutch F-35A fighters have been declared ready for nuclear roles, adding to the strength of the Alliance’s capabilities.

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte highlighted the importance of the exercise, stating, “Nuclear deterrence is the cornerstone of Allied security. Steadfast Noon is an important test of the Alliance’s nuclear deterrent and sends a clear message to any adversary that NATO will protect and defend all Allies.”

The exercise aligns with NATO’s broader goal of ensuring that its nuclear deterrent remains safe, secure, and credible. According to NATO’s recent Washington Summit declaration, the Alliance’s nuclear posture remains essential for preserving peace and deterring aggression as long as nuclear weapons continue to exist.

Avatar photo
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
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
41 Comments
oldest
newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
PaulW
PaulW
24 days ago

Is the U.K. reintroducing air-dropped nukes? 🤔

ABCRodney
ABCRodney
24 days ago
Reply to  PaulW

Don’t be silly you need aircraft to drop bombs 🥴 Seriously I don’t think so they got rid of the WE-177 in 1998 without a replacement (there was a brief project for a stand off missile to replace them but…. ). On the face of it may seem odd that we are the only single country that has a full bore Strategic Nuclear Capability that is declared to NATO but no Tactical weapons. Other NATO countries have 2 key access to US weapons and practice for their use, we don’t. To be fair it would cost a fortune to regenerate… Read more »

simon alex
simon alex
24 days ago
Reply to  ABCRodney

I’m thinking tactical nuclear is more problematic because who decides it’s limited and not all out nuclear war. The uk second strike sub launched is the gold standard to protect or end it all, once and for all.

Jim
Jim
24 days ago
Reply to  simon alex

I agree, tactical nukes make little sense especially if you can launch large numbers of smart munitions.

Netking
Netking
23 days ago
Reply to  Jim

They make little sense and are incredibly expensive to build and maintain but they have legitimate value over the years to the US and especially Russia.

Meirion X
Meirion X
22 days ago
Reply to  Jim

Especially if the munitions contained more powerful explosive, that maybe in development now?

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
24 days ago
Reply to  simon alex

I wonder what happens if Russia drops a small nuke on say Shetland. Would we respond with a strategic response knowing that it would result in the total destruction of the UK in response. The US wouldn’t respond strategically nor tactically I suspect. Any ideas about how things might develop? Let’s hope we never have to find out.

simon alex
simon alex
23 days ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

Crazy Ivan move, Shetland gets a small nuke: Russia has to guess at our response, the UK a country with nuclear missiles. Going against my own point, NATO could use reciprocal & equivalent tactical nuke against Russia. When Putin went off into Ukraine and civil nuclear power stations were being fired on. I was appreciative of our sub at sea deterrent.

Meirion X
Meirion X
20 days ago
Reply to  simon alex

And the need for the RAF to have sufficient F-35s available to retaliate, as well as Typhoons!
No good half of the RAF 609 Sq. the other side of the globe! Carrier strike, is the role of FAA squadrons.
The UK needs another two whole squadrons, that would be around 36 aircraft, if you include standby, and war reserve, which allows for some in maintenance.

Last edited 20 days ago by Meirion X
Meirion X
Meirion X
22 days ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

We should hit the source warpons of delivery/ base with powerful conventional warpons.

Netking
Netking
23 days ago
Reply to  simon alex

Anyone who has given this some serious thought realizes that strategic level nukes are very unlikely to ever be used up to the point where the existence of the country is threatened. That assumption leaves even nuclear armed countries vulnerable to be attacked. See Israel if anyone doubts this is the case. The UK will not respond to a conventional weapon attack even on UK soil with a trident strike. Russia knows this and have invested heavily over the years into tactical nukes and those are a prominent part of their nuclear doctrine. Escalate to de-escalate is something that they… Read more »

simon alex
simon alex
23 days ago
Reply to  Netking

having the 2nd strike deterrent was worked for uk, while there remain other powers with nuclear capabilities. Interesting example you give Isreal has been attacked and also of course Russia has been attacked by Ukraine. Countries with nukes have been attacked on their homeland. It becomes quite a calculated question of appropriate attack and response.

Jim
Jim
24 days ago
Reply to  ABCRodney

I rather spend the money on more warheads for trident and large scale conventional strike with cruise missiles. I just can’t see us ever using a tactical weapon and it would cost billions.

Hermes
Hermes
23 days ago
Reply to  Jim

It is not that very expensive to maintain once it is in place.

The technology of the missile itself is shared with other weapons, so there is no issue and no heavy costs in maintaining R&D for it.

The warhead can be part of the same R&D as the SSBN ones.

ABCRodney
ABCRodney
23 days ago
Reply to  Jim

Just as well we are already spending Billions on doing precisely that. In 2010 Cameloon cut the UK D5 Warheads to 180. But we need to replace all the existing ones with an Anglicised W93 for the D5 and its future replacement. To that we are presently investing Billions in renewing the infrastructure at AWRE and the rest of the supply chain (just like we are with the Submarine industry). In 2020 BW nudged Bo Jo into taking the upgrade as an opportunity to increase the numbers of Warheads to 260. When you do the Math that’s a 44.5% increase… Read more »

E Paul Campbell
E Paul Campbell
22 days ago
Reply to  ABCRodney

What do you mean by ‘steerable’? Pre-programmed, autonomous or satellites linked?

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
24 days ago
Reply to  ABCRodney

I think the WS3 storage vaults in the HAS at Marham were removed when they upgraded for the F35B”

Any source for that info mate?

ABCRodney
ABCRodney
23 days ago

Yep unlike some folks on here I am Happy to back up what I say, providing it’s in the public domain. I’m trying to expand my knowledge base and I got interested as to why we can’t just have a Nuclear Storm Shadow. Trying to get it nailed down was difficult, but the reason I say “ I think” rather than a definite is because I read it in a rather obscure report from the University of York. Normally I’d be a bit wary about such a source but when I read the entire content I was impressed by just… Read more »

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
23 days ago
Reply to  ABCRodney

Thanks.

FormerUSAF
FormerUSAF
23 days ago
Reply to  ABCRodney

Upon reflection, agree F-35A would probably be the practically viable delivery system. B-21s, if/when available, would provide increased flexibility, but would be financially infeasible until hostilities commence. Of course, by then, simply too late.

Meirion X
Meirion X
22 days ago
Reply to  FormerUSAF

A better alternative to Tactical Nukes, would be munitions consisting of super-explosive, enough to destroy any Russian hardened target! So a super-explosive Storm Shadow be developed!

Last edited 22 days ago by Meirion X
Meirion X
Meirion X
22 days ago
Reply to  ABCRodney

Yes a Storm Shadow with a warhead of super explosive new substance? Just imagine a 450kg non-atomic warhead equivalent to 1500kg conventional explosives?
Present day conventional explosives do have the potential to be more powerful I read.

Last edited 22 days ago by Meirion X
Monkey spanker
Monkey spanker
23 days ago
Reply to  PaulW

Just filling all the tubes on the submarines would be a good starting point.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
23 days ago
Reply to  PaulW

No. It would not fit Labour’s agenda to reintroduce such weapons.

This exercise is not just for nuclear capable strike aircraft. It is also for ‘fighter escorts, refuelling aircraft, and planes equipped for reconnaissance and electronic warfare’. 

Monkey spanker
Monkey spanker
23 days ago

Thank goodness no live weapons.

David Lloyd
David Lloyd
23 days ago

How reasuring to read that this is only a “routine” training exercise. For a minute there I thought they were practicing for a real nuclear war.

How disturbing to realise that the alpha male chimps who run the planet must be actually preparing for armageddon

Peter
Peter
23 days ago
Reply to  David Lloyd

They have always done this type of training… Media is the fuel that sets embers ablaze. I have got to admit the resent global events reported by media is making me want to start stocking up on forever foods, iodine tablets and digging out a bunker though.

ABCRodney
ABCRodney
23 days ago
Reply to  David Lloyd

“Si vis pacem, para bellum” The Romans knew what they were talking about.

Jacko
Jacko
23 days ago
Reply to  David Lloyd

Never been any different! We always practiced and prepared for NBC in Germany.
I remember doing site guard where nuclear weapons were stored,they have always been in the background.

Sue The
Sue The
23 days ago
Reply to  David Lloyd

We live in Kent and we have ‘the Ruby’ ship anchored 12 miles from Margate. She is full of 20.000 tons of potentially explosive cargo!
And now a nuclear routine training exercise is heading her way?
We certainly live in interesting times.

Michael S.
Michael S.
23 days ago

The nuclear role is the reason why Germany still uses the Tornado and is getting F35. Interesting fact: Normally the nukes are at Büchel air base, which currently is refurbished for the F35. The Tornados relocated to Nörvenich air base. Normally you could visit Nörvenich by General Aviation Planes. You cannot currently since they have the Büchel Tornados. Whether the nukes are there is secret. Generally the nukes are under US command. They can only be fired if US authorisation is there. I really wonder how realistic such a mission would be. If I were russian and nuclear escalation was… Read more »

James Scott Carey
James Scott Carey
23 days ago

Don’t have any problem with the training it’s for our safety when you have a mad man like Putin and china and North Korea very unstable world we live in. But one strike on the uk and it’s the end for us no survivors. This country must not cut costs in the military yes we have nuclear weapons . But what land systems do we have to protect from any missile attack. And do we have any mobile missile batteries to take down any attack from ships like other countries have when our planes are busy I don’t believe we… Read more »

Last edited 23 days ago by James Scott Carey
Terence Lear
Terence Lear
22 days ago

Good descriptive Journalism. Well done.

JF
JF
22 days ago

Stop discussing national security on very open, non private media!

Vioxine
Vioxine
22 days ago

Tempest f35 in the year 2030 and the b2 spirit a combination of travel.A way of life indeed.

Chris Evans
Chris Evans
22 days ago

Why bother having a debate about it? You wouldn’t be around to rectify anything ☠️🤣🤣🤣

Wasso
Wasso
22 days ago

Who really cares we would all be dead anyway one nuke goes up they all go up

Jack Coombes
Jack Coombes
22 days ago

Thanks for making it clear that no live weapons will be used. I kind of assumed anyway that the air force wouldnt be dropping Hydrogen bombs on West Sussex as part of the training drill.

Paul
Paul
21 days ago

Interesting stuff but I’m sure everyone here knows you can’t deter a country that already has nuclear weapons from anything, be it North Korea, India, Pakistan or Israel etc, we all live in their mercy and hope that their leaders don’t get suicidal and kill half the world population in the process.

Lynn
Lynn
21 days ago

How safe are we if Russia attack?