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 NATOā€™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, ā€œNuclear 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.ā€

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

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

41 COMMENTS

    • Donā€™t be silly you need aircraft to drop bombs šŸ„“ Seriously I donā€™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 butā€¦. ).
      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 donā€™t.
      To be fair it would cost a fortune to regenerate a credible, safe and deployable weapon system and given the budget situation something else would have to go.
      I think the WS3 storage vaults in the HAS at Marham were removed when they upgraded for the F35B so we would need to build new ones. Also we would need to regenerate the Transport, Maintenance, Training, weapons handling and security systems necessary.

      So it ainā€™t going to happen.

      • Iā€™m thinking tactical nuclear is more problematic because who decides itā€™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.

          • 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.

        • 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 wouldnā€™t respond strategically nor tactically I suspect. Any ideas about how things might develop? Letā€™s hope we never have to find out.

          • 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.

          • 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.

        • 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 plan for.

          • 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.

      • I rather spend the money on more warheads for trident and large scale conventional strike with cruise missiles. I just canā€™t see us ever using a tactical weapon and it would cost billions.

        • 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.

        • 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 thatā€™s a 44.5% increase in Warheads, which is the single largest increase being carried out by any declared Nuclear Power.

          As Iā€™ve said before it isnā€™t the numbers of Warheads you launch that matter, itā€™s the numbers that get through. So 3/4 per missile plus the decoys ensures a high strike rate and the CEP of the modern ones is very high.
          Its quite significant that the recent attack by Iran on Israel was a bit of an eye opener, the most modern longer ranged Iranian missiles proved to have steerable final stages and they seem to have gotten through Iron Dome.

      • 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?

        • Yep unlike some folks on here I am Happy to back up what I say, providing itā€™s in the public domain.
          Iā€™m trying to expand my knowledge base and I got interested as to why we canā€™t just have a Nuclear Storm Shadow.
          Trying to get it nailed down was difficult, but the reason I say ā€œ I thinkā€ rather than a definite is because I read it in a rather obscure report from the University of York.
          Normally Iā€™d be a bit wary about such a source but when I read the entire content I was impressed by just how well researched, knowledgable and reasoned it was.
          On the face of it I thought it was going to be a CND blurb, but the co author is Dr John Walker from RUSI.(read his Bio).

          Itā€™s called :-

          ā€œIrreversibility and Nuclear Disarmament: The Case of Denuclearising the Royal Air Forceā€

          I have to say it changed my mind completely. My conclusion was that unless we were to go down the duel key US supplied route (F35A) then forget it.

          Enjoy šŸ˜Ž and Iā€™d be interested in what you think (the WE177 accidents bit is just downright scary, but it may explain why we got booted out of Malta).

          • 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.

          • 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!

          • 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.

    • 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’. 

  1. 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

    • 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.

    • 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.

    • 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.

  2. The nuclear role is the reason why Germany still uses the Tornado and is getting F35.

    Interesting fact: Normally the nukes are at BĆ¼chel air base, which currently is refurbished for the F35. The Tornados relocated to Nƶrvenich air base.

    Normally you could visit Nƶrvenich by General Aviation Planes. You cannot currently since they have the BĆ¼chel 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 imminent I would bomb the airport first.

    Anyway – the nuclear sharing was very controversial in german politics before ukraine war. After the Invasion, no one is questioning the Mission seriously and the F35 deal went through.

  3. Donā€™t have any problem with the training itā€™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 itā€™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 donā€™t believe we have anything like that and no land base missile siloes either

  4. Why bother having a debate about it? You wouldn’t be around to rectify anything ā˜ ļøšŸ¤£šŸ¤£šŸ¤£

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here