A Defence Minister has confirmed that the Royal Air Force is still exploring the possibility of operating a mix of F-35B and F-35A fighter jets, suggesting a potential future acquisition of the A variant.
Following a drafting error in an official parliamentary response, the government has edited its statement to indicate that the Royal Air Force is considering a mix of F-35B and F-35A fighter jets, with the latter potentially linked to NATO’s nuclear sharing mission.
The initial response incorrectly suggested a confirmed shift to acquiring F-35As, an error originating from the official statement and not the fault of this publication.
strong>Correction 10/06/2025 – Our earlier reporting suggested a definitive shift toward acquiring F-35A aircraft alongside the F-35B, based on an initial parliamentary response to a question from Conservative MP Andrew Snowden, which stated: “The Strategic Defence Review does not recommend reductions in fast jets for the RAF, but it confirms the Government’s commitment to GCAP, to upgrade Typhoons and no reductions in number as there is a shift to a new mix of F35Bs and F35As. The Government is committed to upgrading Typhoons and driving exports of Typhoons abroad.”
The response was subsequently corrected to read: “The Strategic Defence Review does not recommend reductions in fast jets for the RAF, but it confirms the Government’s commitment to GCAP and to upgrade Typhoons. It also says more F-35s could comprise a mix of F-35A and B models according to military requirements. The Government is committed to upgrading Typhoons and driving exports of Typhoons abroad.”
Why the F-35A?
It was part of a key recommendation in the newly published Strategic Defence Review (SDR). The document states:
“More F-35s will be required over the next decade. This could comprise a mix of F-35A and B models according to military requirements to provide greater value for money.”
This reference to a potential F-35A acquisition has been interpreted by experts and parliamentarians as linked to the UK’s possible future role in NATO’s nuclear sharing mission, an arrangement under which non-nuclear states host US nuclear weapons and are capable of delivering them in wartime.
While the UK already possesses its own independent nuclear deterrent via the submarine-based Trident system, participation in NATO’s air-delivered nuclear mission would mark a significant evolution in its commitment to Alliance nuclear burden-sharing.
During a Commons exchange, Conservative MP Ben Obese-Jecty raised the issue directly with the Defence Secretary, citing changes in US procurement plans and raising questions about variant costs and capabilities.
“With reference to recommendation 46, the US’s 2025 marine aviation plan… outlined that the US Marine Corps—by far the biggest user of the F-35B—has changed its programme of record, reducing orders for F-35Bs by 73 aircraft in favour of the F-35C. The upshot is that the unit price of each B aircraft is about to increase by tens of millions… What assessment has been made of the current queue for the F-35A… and what assessment has been made of converting our remaining B orders to F-35C and modifying our carriers to CATOBAR?”
Responding, Defence Secretary John Healey MP did not directly address the question of variant conversion but confirmed that discussions were underway regarding NATO’s nuclear mission:
“As the hon. Gentleman says, the SDR recommends commencing discussions with the US and NATO on enhancing the UK’s participation in NATO’s nuclear mission. We have accepted that recommendation, as we have the other 61 recommendations in the review. I will not comment in public on those discussions, but this is what putting NATO first looks like.”
Germany offers a useful precedent. In 2020, Berlin announced it would procure 30 Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornets to replace its Tornado fleet in the nuclear role, although at the time the Super Hornet was not yet certified to carry the B61 gravity bomb used in NATO’s nuclear arsenal.
By 2022, amid heightened security concerns following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Germany reversed course and chose to buy 35 F-35A aircraft instead, specifically for the NATO nuclear sharing role.
The concern is that with two F35 variant forces, neither of which has the critical mass to do anything much in particular.
I earnestly hope that this is not in place of the next buy of F35Bs otherwise that hamstrings the CSG concept.
Mind you have would ease Reeve’s dealing with China which appear to be a blindingly naive as her financial and monetary policies.
Every country that operates the F35B also operates the F35A excluding Singapore and all bar one of them operates a smaller fleet than us.
They are quite a lot of disingenuous statements issued sighting the commonality of the two aircraft as only 20%. The figure itself is a lie but it’s more of a manufacturing statement rather than anything to do with operations.
All F35 have a common maintenance chain so it doesn’t matter which model we have for parts. Their sensor are identical, computers are identical, flight controls are nearly identical.
The F35B and A have far more commonality that an Airbus A320 and A330 that allow common rating in civilian service.
F35A has significantly cheaper operating and acquisition cost with much more weapon options.
Even at 48 aircraft the F35B fleet is perfectly sustainable. Singapore operates just 6 and Italy 15 on a fraction of our budget.
If we need to fight Russia without the USA which looks more likely we can easily defeat them with AirPower but as Ukraine has shown we need strong SEAD/DEAD capability. The F35 is the best aircraft for the mission by far and the F35A is the quickest and best option for that.
Once we replace the USAF in SEAD we no longer need US forces in Europe for much else.
I agree that we can probably deal with Russia as it is now close to solo if we had more munitions stockpiles.
However, whether you have A/B or C makes little difference if you don’t have the weapons integrations or stockpiles.
There is a realistic degree of concern about how to deploy some of the superb weapons that we have for Typhoon. We have stockpiles and indigenous supply chains for most of those.
I am not of the ilk to say that CSG should never have the super hard hitting required and that is what this reductionist thinking leads to.
OK part of the issue is RAF gold plated thinking about the tail. The reality is that frames and spares are the priority. In a time of crisis it is amazing how fast you can train or retrain people!
Respectfully Singapore operating 6 No F35B is comedy value as in a good day 2-3 will be deployable.
Jim – Singapore currently has 4 F35B but towards the end of last year confirmed an order for an additional 8 Bs. On top of this is also a confirmed order for 12 F35As which will be delivered towards 2030 bring the total RSAF F35 fleet to 20. BTW, Singapore defence spending remains constant at between 3.3 – 4% of GDP.
Hi Jim we don’t have 48 F35B, once the 1st Tranche is complete we will have 43 operationally useable Aircraft out of 48 purchased (3 test wired, 1 non operational test and 1 which went for a dip). As it states in the SDR (page 115), we will need to order another Tranche of F35 in the next decade and it may be a mixed buy. As I’ve said before if it were me it would be @20 more F35B (63 total) and 36+ F35A and I’d assign all the B’s to the FAA. That way we have enough for a full CAG, maintenance and a small OCU for the Navy and a reasonable number for RAF Strike.
Personally I’d like us to purchase an extra 30 odd Typhoons as we need to increase mass and let’s face it when has any recent U.K. project ever been on time.
Sounds reasonable, I’m very much for another buy of typhoon if the money is available as well.
Are you serious? Those aircraft were obsolete on entry into service. Non-stealth aircraft are just fine in supporting roles, but the UK has no real frontline stealth fighters that aren’t jump jets of limited range and payload. That money is much better spent on F-35As or the Tempest program.
There are sound strategic reasons for ordering more Eurofighters. We need to maintain the ability to assemble aircraft until the Tempest is ready for mass production. It will be expensive and time consuming to have to re-learn these skills.
The Typhoon is good enough for most jobs, a limited purchase of F35As to tide us over until the Tempest comes online should tide us over until then.
The f35b provide a useful capability for the RAF also. If there was ever a war the air bases would be the first thing targeted and being able to scatter the f35b and operate off roads etc would be a significant advantage. Saying that the FAA could be trained to provide that ability without the jets being partially assigned for the RAF.
FAA were historically trained to use Harrier that way to support Army and RM.
The problem with F35B is that the aircraft needs a 4* hotel as well as the pilot!
The days of turning up with a dozer and some steel matting, nailing it down and having a bowser with some tents as a base are in the rear view mirror.
F35B wasn’t designed for austere operations.
That said you could well have prepared areas of concrete that can be FOD cleared with a building looking a lot like a cowshed as the maintenance hub.
In fact a mid scale farm wouldn’t be a bad disguise as the yard and is usually concrete….for heavy vehicle movements.
In a war situation a way will be found. Just can’t do it with the A or typhoon due to length of run way required
In my very Navy centric view I’d rather have the 72 F35B.
Army and RM would probably be up for that too.
Best in mind that CGS is RM and supporting ground forces is a proper F35B role whether from a carrier or from prepared positions.
I don’t really agree with the negativity around Typhoon as it is far more than anything that Mad Vlad’s scrap heap challenge can throw in the air and we have the tail to support it in a sovereign manner.
Hi Jim, where you say “Even at 48 aircraft the F35B fleet is perfectly sustainable ….”, I agree with you but we need the ability to ‘surge’ which, to me, means if it comes to it, be capable of putting both Carriers to sea during heightened tensions with a truly capable strike wing on both. I appreciate you’re not necessarily saying stop at 48 Bs but, as ABCRodney says, we do need more. I get your point about more Typhoons, this is a more sovereign-like capability (marginally), I appreciate the dilemma now between US made and UK made. Personally, I’d like us to acquire 2 sqns of F35As, with a training/test & Evaluation flight, so say 30 As but then still meet the 72-odd Bs that were being talked about. This gives the RAF a 5th gen nuke delivery capability with the extra range and payload the A gives us but also gives us the ability to put 24 Bs on each carrier, if needed. As we augment more UAV capabilities onto the carriers there should, hopefully, be less of a need to surge to, say 36 Bs per carrier, so having 72 Bs should be a lot more manageable. Separate note, with the F35A we would need to start talking about retrofitting the AirTanker fleet with booms, would we not?
Hi DP, I like your sentiment. One thing you should also consider is availability. The F35 is getting a bit of a reputation for lack of serviceability. So if we are considering a Sqn is 12 jets rather than the 10, plus you’re talking about at least two front line Sqns and an OCU. You have to factor in how many aircraft you need to deliver 24 front line jets for tasking and perhaps 4 to 6 OCU jets. If we now include the maintenance cycle, which will have jets going through scheduled maintenance of various depths. It could mean an additional 8 jets are unavailable. Which is probably getting close to the desired 48 jets. It gets a bit more complicated when you now require 3 Sqns, as 48 jets won’t be sufficient to meet all the tasking and maintenance needs.
Good analysis.
Unfortunately this isn’t Harrier and we are not in control and so able to evolve service life of components.
Well said.
Italy will operate 40 F35Bs, but take your point, and agree that whilst it’s a big shame, the F35B looks increasingly a dead end with the delays to weapons and options to complement with drones. The best thing would be to buy a “few more” (6?) to the point where the force can support 3 x 9 a/c front line squadrons all assigned to the carriers. This would then allow the scaling up to 2 squadrons for strike or a single squadron when acting in a Sea Control / LHA role. Even the 47 could sustain a 3 x 8 a/c squadron structure.
The thing is that even if the UK chose to divert the order for 24 additional a/c to the F35A, it would still only support one front line squadron of 12 a/c max. In reality for all those getting excited by this is that unless much more money is invested on more F35s (rather than on Tempest / drones / missiles etc which has to be the priority) then this will be a tightly embedded NATO nuclear “bomber” only squadron
Reeve’s withdrawal of the pensioner winter fuel allowance was blindingly naive. But the general principle of only borrowing for capital projects, not for current expenditure is sound I think. Consumer lead growth had ceased to work; the economy needs supply side reforms which will take a while to work. That said, this week could be the week Starmer lost the next election. Cosseting Milliband’s obsession with dubious net zero in preference to policing and council services is a blunder.
It was incredibly stupid for them to withdraw the WFA like that and it’s no surprise that they’ve had to backtrack. Their solution looks to be overly complicated though. They should just add it to the basic state pension and then use the tax system to ‘means test’ it (ideally abolishing NI and increasing income tax accordingly).
A quick look at the current state of UK politico-demography tells you all you need to know: there are loads of pensioners and they are highly motivated to vote so their wishes can’t be ignored. They have been vital in keeping the Conservatives in power in recent years and in return the Conservatives made sure they didn’t lose out during the years of stagnant growth, making sure to protect NHS spending and increase the state pension faster than the growth of workers’ wages.
I also agree on the need to increase investment. We’ve had one of the lowest capital investment rates of any large economy for multiple decades now and we now have a huge investment debt to pay back – our basic public infrastructure is increasingly decrepit and urgently needs replacing.
We’ve enjoyed a massive investment holiday (and consequently paid much lower taxes) since the 1980s but we can’t carry on freeloading on past generations’ investments.
Agree, should have been more cuts to children’s benefits, lazy little buggers anyway, most of them could easily get a job and stop scrounging off the state none of them even vote so no point in giving them any money.
Pensioners always vote and they always needs more money and they normally vote for anyone offering them more money while also clearly looking out for the country’s best interests 🤔
😂
Absolutely, you can’t have rights without responsibilities, which rules out both children and pensioners 😂
No representation without taxation 😀
Jim,
May have to expropriate that aphorism for utilization on this side of the Pond! Appropos description of many Federal legislative/fiscal issues. 👍👍😁
😂
Tiny Tim certainly does not require specialist medical care or a nutritious diet, at least according to the descendents of Ebeneezer Scrooge. 😁. (Really don’t have a dog in this fight.)
FormerUSAF time to start taxing all those churches that the US seems to think can freeload…
Dern,
A real issue could be the possible future taxation of politically non-favored US universities. This taxation could ultimately substantially impair US R&D capabilities. However, European universities would undoubtedly conversely benefit from the redistribution of academic talent.
The EU has already launched a €500million initiate to poach academics and researchers from the USA.
The UK is putting together its own scheme worth £50million.
Even with the F35B’s we never delivered critical mass. I think in the long run this has to be seen as a win, HMG committing to more nuclear weapons needing a delivery vehicle only means more F35s.
Possible unstated ulterior motive for USAF support for RAF acquisition of F-35A: USAF desires at least one ENATO AF capable of shacking targets w/ B61-12 and/or B61-13. Contrary to popular wisdom, CEPs do indeed count. RAF, though significantly reduced in structure, has nevertheless maintained professional standards.
NATO has sorted that already. The Germans have already ordered the F-35A to carry the B-61=12 for when the Tornado is retired. After the US priced the Typhoon conversion kit to the sky. I think only the USAF is to get the B-61-13.
Cosying up to the CCP is like putting your head in a lions’ mouth , then tickling its throat with a feather. The premier cyberattacker of the UK, largest, most dangerous foe, implaccable enemy of western values & we now plan to get even more under their thumb. Insanity.
The Chinese need to be kept in check. Their super embassy plans need to be curtailed and told to scale back. They can have an embassy but we should not be letting them have an embassy of such size that they can operate hundreds of spies and act in a malign manner spreading all kinds of influence throughout the UK.
Their plans need to be rejected and they need to be told an embassy with maximum 100 staff is all you’re getting.
Urgh!! Such a weird and wasteful use of previous resources when there’s a massive list of more pressing issues.
Worst case scenario we’re now going to end up with 2 small F35 A/B fleets with limited commonality…..sacrificing restricting the scope of carrier strike and GCAP in the process.
Nice to have, but not where I’d be funnelling money at the expense of a larger F35B fleet, or dozens of other priorities.
N
The fear over undermining GCAP is very strange, considering that the other two partner nations in GCAP operate both the A and B F-35s in larger fleets than the RAF. Furthermore, GCAP is not intended to replace the F-35, but to complement it. GCAP is both confirmed and funded – this F-35A purchase, especially if it replaces a future B purchase, will not affect GCAP.
Budgets are under enormous stress. Not saying GCAP will be cancelled, but funding delayed, pace slowed? Don’t be so sure.
Slowing the pace would likely loose Japan. If you want my guess, the budget issue is fiscally solved by simply replacing the remaining 24 F-35Bs with A models. I assume, what with the new hybrid carrier idea, that that is the plan.
Yeah my thought too. Probably can get 36 A’s for the price of 24 B’s. And then stick some drones on the carriers to make up the numbers. Could someone more knowledgeable than me tell me if 24 F35Bs and a bunch of drones is actually has good capabilities or is just a penny pinching exercise in disguise?
*lose
Please bring back the edit function 🙏
Hopefully it won’t be a replacement the plan for 27 seconds batch of F35Bs but an additional 24-36 F35 As for the RAF especially after Rutte visit yesterday stating the UK has to do more. Our government will be pushed to reach 3% much sooner eg by 2028 and 3.5% by 2030 before the next election.
NATO will embarrass us to do so.
As typhoon batch ones have retired the need for a decent sized F35A order is pressing to supplement frontline power and not just for nuclear strike.
We also need a new light fighter/ advanced trainer. Especially for close air support at low altitude and ground attack and as a second line defensive fighter able to engage using cooperative engagement with the marker air raft being typhoon or F35.
So I’d say more aircraft are going to have to be funded and very shortly.
Feel sorry for Reeves and Labour government as their demands on funding are such after 15 wasted Tory years that I can’t see anyway to get the funding needed to pump prime the huge investments in infrastructure and growth without tax rises and benefits , welfare and social security cuts.
Think the F-35C option has been shot, unless we convert 1 CV to CATOBAR and buy 48 x F-35c as to run 1 STOL Carrier and/or 1 CATOBAR for the Navy. i think 48 of each B & C would be enough (just) the keep 2 CV Air wings operational (or just buy 48 more B’s). Then buy 48-60 x F-35A for RAF along with booms for Voyagers would give RAF long range low obs strike.
Sorry but the plan was never to operate both at the same time and always best to keept the operation of them the same. One FULL Carrier wing with at least 36 fighters and supporting assets is a must with the FAA taking full control of the assests.
That plan was for peacetime. We’re now looking at imminant or near imminant conflict, so all that planning might be redundant, superceeded by todays realities. The VSTOL F35B remains of great use to the RAF for its ability to operate from heavily damaged & improvised bases(especially as we have very little to defend them with). So I hope we keep orders for 70+ Bs & add the 30 odd As seperately. Not that I’m convinced we neeed a nuke capable air arm, especially when our conventional forces urgently need such major investment.
Focus here should be a domestic aircraft. The F35A if it ever comes to pass should be a stop gap measure purely for the purpose described.
CATOBAR should never be part of our carriers kit. Waste of space. The Americans have moved on.
Mechanism for launching drones – maybe. Whatever suits our requirements.
” The Americans have moved on.” lol no they haven’t. they’re currently building 3 and have more on order:
“The U.S. Navy is currently building three Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carriers: USS John F. Kennedy (CVN-79), USS Enterprise (CVN-80), and USS Doris Miller (CVN-81). A total of six have been ordered, including these three plus USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78), which is already built and in service, and two additional carriers, USS William J. Clinton (CVN-82) and USS George W. Bush (CVN-83). The Navy plans to eventually acquire a total of ten Ford-class carriers to replace the Nimitz-class carriers on a one-for-one basis.”
The launch mechanism for the Ford Class is completely differerent to the previous class, what the French are using and what we spent a fortune on last time we messed around with this. If I am not mistaken that is not CATOBAR it is different, probably better – they have moved on.
its still CATOBAR, the planes take off and land the exact same way (same planes etc) as the previous carriers. Its just the launching and landing mechanisms are powered by electromagnets instead of steam which has a lot of upsides like allowing you to launch and recover lighter aircraft like drones since its more controllable, also causes a lot less stress on the airframes of typical carrier jets, has lower maintenance etc. had a lot of problems in development but its working good now.
F35A’s wrong for UK. It’s another example of US cutting out competition – we should be saying that if America wants Europe to use American bombs, America should pay to make Typhoon compatible until such time as Tempest isavailable. Personally still want to see a European solution… won’t happen, but increase number of European controlled weapons, including a short range tactical nuclear missile rather than a free fall bomb!
I had wanted the RAF to get 15x F-35A for 74 sqn, to carry all the weapons, including B-61, that A carries, but are not on B. However, unless the UK gets Israeli style digital autonomy, I am not keen on any more F-35. QE/PoW could do with AAG for STOBAR operations. Does not preclude STOVL. Is a value for money, flexible upgrade.
Great move. The F35-A is much cheaper and a lot more capable. Get enough Bs to run the carrier strike and then the remaining should be the A model.
🤦🏻♂️🤣
Agreed. The already substantial price difference could grow even bigger, as will the potential to piggy back on other allies upgrades / weapons integration.
Refuelling ?
How much is the addition of drogue style refuelling for “A”
Be interested to see how many million that customisation costs per plane.
The biggest issue is costing up to them and becoming a dumping ground for all their cheap Tat that undercuts sensible manufacturing prices.
The Chinese simply don’t care about what they agree to. They are just economic bullies.
The embassy idea is nuts. They will have a small army in there terrorising the UK Chinese community even more than they already do.
Germany doesn’t have nuclear weapons so why has it got planes in the nuclear role?
To drop American nuclear bombs.
NATO nuclear sharing.
I think German, Dutch, Belgian and Turkish jets were all certified to drop US nukes. Not sure if all are maintaining this ability as they transition to new fleets, but Germany certainly intends to.
Has the 2nd tranche of 26x F35b that we’ve commited to actually been ordered yet? We originally committed to 138, however at least if we have a total of 74 at the moment, and they are solely for the RN, that is enough for a credible carrier strike capability for one carrier operating at a time.
Would it potentially be enough to field 2 carriers with 18 jets on each one?
Maybe we will get 74 F35B for Carrier strike, then 64 F35A.
That would be a wonderful solution with enough mass on both ALPHA and BRAVO variants to be truly useful.
Depends if the budget is there and when they can actually be delivered able to take the weapons that UK has in its stockpiles.
No. It hasn’t.
Such a B buy is critical before any As.
Hi M8 What I’d like us to do is develop a U.K bomb that’s compatible with the B as well as the A. Trump is just way too unreliable and we cannot rely on him approving the use of their pre positioned B61’s, all it takes is Putin to tell Trump that he doesn’t care who drops a US bomb it’s still a US bomb and they will retaliate accordingly.
Is this gravity bomb able to have a glide kit or a motor added for increased stand off range? You’d drop the thing and then have to get the hell out of there pretty quick wouldn’t you? Maybe have to l fly around the 🍄 ☁️?
Hope they’d also utilise other bombs and missiles. If Meteor is getting further delayed why not go for a supped up version based on a ASRAAM-ER with double-tripple+of more in range?
Not sure Tornado style interdiction relying on free fall nuclear bombs is the way to deter the Russian doctrine of their first use as battlefield weapons. Better to threaten an overwhelming conventional missile and air launched response. That said, in the current NATO / Trump political climate this F-35A move was always on the cards.
You forget they are 5th gen, State of the art stealth and I’d say they have given back exactly this sort of capability the UK walked away from decades ago.
If just a couple got through, that would do the job pretty convincingly, meanwhile Russia will have to spend big to counter the threat.
Yeh, on balance a good decision. Putting the B61 issue to one side, F-35A is cheaper, has longer range and a wide selection of conventional weapons. It is the true stealth successor to Tornado. We should top out the F-35B buy at 72 at most. Replacing the tranche 1 Typhoons with F-35A would be a step increase in capability.
Buying American for nuclear won’t be cheaper in the long run. Far from it. The F-35As will have many of the same issues as the the B. They will only take a limited range of mostly American weapons. They won’t fly far enough and we’ll need to pay extra to adapt or refuellers. There will be insufficient spare parts. We will not be able to put any UK weapons on them without US permission and a very long wait (and that includes nuclear), which they will deny to force us to buy American. On top of that, all nuclear is ridiculously expensive and of limited use. Having an independent force adds to the mix, but having a second dependent force doesn’t.
As long as we aren’t spending enough on conventional power, adding a second nuclear leg is of dubious utility and should be a long way down the laundry list. It also ignores the point of having a second nuclear leg: we don’t trust the Americans to respond to shield us tactically. If we do, we don’t need a tactical leg. NATO already has several countries operating American duel-key tactical nukes. Why does it need another?
All true, but we are where we are. Whether we look east or west we have arrived at a situation where the F-35A buy is a political necessity.
Bloody RAF takes every opportunity to diminish carriers.
Maybe we will get 74 F35B for Carrier strike, then 64 F35A.
Maybe. On the day they cancel Tempest.
They won’t cancel Tempest. Not when the political atmosphere has changed to not only demand increased defence spending but also to increase autonomy from the US.
Trump has basically secured the Tempest program and made it beyond cancellation, or more so, since cancelling it would always have involved annoying both the Italians and the Japanese.
Silly decision in my opinion.
The UK government should be investing in their workforce at home. Without final assembly work coming to Warton soon, an entire workforce and the experience that comes with it will be lost. You can forget Tempest final assembly at the point, as it’ll likely be deemed too expensive to spool up such activities. We’ll end up relying on Italy and Japan to assembly aircraft for the UK.
Agreed. Who knows if the USA even in 5 years time will be a free democracy & not descend into a tinpot dictatorship, the kind Trumps admires. Possibly by way of a 2nd civil war there. Now is not the time to ad more American dependancies when Trump can’t be trusted.
Trump will self destruct. JD Vance will be the next POTUS.
Utterly stupid decision that guarantees the UK will have fewer jets as operating three types of fast jet being more expensive than two.
It also means we’re going to have to carry nuclear free-fall bombs supplied by Trumpland, or develop our own. The latter cost further guaranteeing further reductions in spend on conventional forces.
It will also make Italy and Japan question the UK’s commitment to GCAP.
Stupidest defence idea since the early scrapping of Invincible class and Harriers.
Both Italy and Japan are also receiving both F35A and F35B as we speak (both have received less than half their orders to date). And Italy recently ordered Tranche 4 Typhoons. Does that make us question their commitment to GCAP?
This is a sensible uplift to the fast jet fleet.
Even singapore is ordering the A and B, 20 total. its a no brainer really. they’re pretty much the same aircraft, the B just has extra equipment. If you already operate the B you don’t really need to add any extra logistics to add the A.
You really don’t understand the differences between the variants, they are not “pretty much the same” aircraft 🤦🏻♂️
Let me point you to a really obvious difference… the F35A uses boom refuelling, the F35B uses drogue and probe. All UK air-to-air is drogue and probe; F35B, Typhoon, A400M, C17, etc.
We don’t have anyway to refuel F35As.
It’s a non issue as the RAF outsources refueling anyway, I could see the ability being brought into service once the contract comes back open for bidders.
Fosterman, certainly not a “non issue,” as demanding changes to the Air Tanker contract is a non-trivial thing (it’s also not really outsourcing as the aircraft are operated by the RAF, just that Airtanker can use some of them for civilian purposes).
It’s not sensible.
It’s a 50% increase in operational costs, as we’d have 3 fast jets fleets instead of 2. All for the benefit of dropping nuke bombs if the US gives us permission.
100% spot on. More aircraft can only be a good thing? Plus if HMG want the RAF to have the nuclear strike ability back, it’s logical to think that in the long term plans for a new UK design could take its role one the F35 has reached the end of its life.
So which of the T26 frigates are you going to cancel to pay for the development of a nuclear gravity bomb we’ll never need.
Which of the Army programmes, Boxer or RCH-155, are you going to cancel to pay for the additional expense of having a third type of fast jet?
There isn’t a great deal of additional support cost of operating the A variant over the B. It would be a different story if it were the other way round though, given the additional complexity of the B variant with its lift fan etc. Any additional up front costs would be offset by lower long-term operating costs of the A compared to the B.
The refueling issue is a real problem, but not insurmountable.
The fear over undermining GCAP is very strange, considering that the other two partner nations in GCAP operate both the A and B F-35s in larger fleets than the RAF. Furthermore, GCAP is not intended to replace the F-35, but to complement it. GCAP is both confirmed and funded – this F-35A purchase, especially if it replaces a future B purchase, will not affect GCAP.
What does the fact that Japan and Italy both field F35A’s & F35B’s have to do with our commitment to GCAP?
You are conflating two separate entities.
They have already decided how they wished to split & fund their aircraft prior to GCAP – and so had we , and ours didn’t include funding for F35A’s.
Therefore any concern within the UK is based solely on the additional purchase and support of an aircraft we previously had no intention whatsoever of buying.
This , against a backdrop of increased tensions within UK (and wider EU) – US relations ,both financially and militarily, where the US have made it plain they have no wish to support western European interests, added to LM’s (at best) general malaise in non US weapons integration on the F35B , should ring alarm bells in those wishing to pursue the GCAP program. and/or those who wish to maximise the Carrier group capability.
America has past form in undermining sovereign projects , and will always , repeat always, seek to push for American influence whenever it can.
I have very little doubt whatsoever that if , after all the recent signs from America, we continue go down the route of purchasing F35A’s , it will have a detrimental impact on our commitment to , and delivery of, GCAP.
You’ve misunderstood what I’m saying. There were implications that Japan and Italy would negatively view a British purchase of the F-35A as undermining British commitment to the GCAP. I’m saying that isn’t accurate, primary because both other nations already run that force structure.
We don’t need F35A or long range missiles bolted onto QE carriers . This is a bad joke.
Agreed, both are utterly stupid ideas.
I half think they were only included in the SDR just to see if anyone actually read it from cover to cover… 😏
Got to admit, when it comes to stupid defence decisions we must be world leaders.
Oh I think Putin has overtaken and established a long-lead over all other politicians for stupid defence decisions.
Would be better to put nuclear cruise missiles on typhoon and eventually migrate it over to tempest
Oh dear. Interesting to see how a sovereign capability (UK designed and sourced) will ever be integrated. Otherwise it is an American weapon, hard to see those being under UK control. F35A will be a costly mistake.
The recommendation in the SDR was to discuss with USA the expansion of nuclear options. This statement just confirms that. Let’s hope the discussions don’t lead to our spending scarce funds on an aircraft and weapon we absolutely don’t need. Responding to the perceived weakening of the US nuclear umbrella by fielding a weapon over which they will have dual key control is illogical and frankly stupid.
Arming our own aircraft with our own weapon. We are more than capable of making them (we had plenty in the past) Stick it on the front end of a long range missile and we have full control and also safer for the pilot who may get a chance to return. Dropping the nuc the old fashioned way means in general the asset and pilot delivering it will be on a one way trip……. very costly choice………
This is one of the worst recommendations within the SDR.
It’s not just that the capability itself relatively specialist (tactical nuclear weapons) or that the solution (F35As) is a relatively expensive way of delivering it, but it is also that it means us buying yet more US equipment, over which we have very little control (e.g. Meteor integration now put back to the 2030s).
We must be able to introduce a sovereign tactical nuclear weapon capability in a much cheaper and smarter way than this.
Dust off the blueprints for WE.177 , fit a Paveway glide kit and fit to Typhoon?
Spot on !
Anyone who has taken the trouble to actually read the 2025 SDR will already know that its main emphasis was to recommit our main defence effort towards NATO missions and away from the expeditionary warfare focus of the recent past. One would hope that with the obvious renewed threat that Putin’s Russia now poses, coupled with Trump’s doubtful commitment to NATO, the immediate defence of our nation and continent is a priority that nobody seriously questions. Therefore, ordering the relatively less expensive,and in some regards significantly more capable, F-35A for employment exclusively by the RAF on NATO’s Northern flank would appear to this observer of the defence scene to be a overdue and eminently sensible development. A mixed F-35 fleet has its attractions that the framers of the SDR have clearly recognised.
It seems to me that the CVF project, which the RN sacrificed so very much to realise, can only have a marginal relevance in this NATO v Russia scenario – they would surely not survive long off the Norwegian coast and are arguably the wrong type of ships for the priority ASW tasking the RN surely must now has to address again. The F-35B we already have will be more than sufficient to keep one QEC carrier in business for the foreseeable future and I say we must now prioritise the RAFs urgent need for F-35A procurement.
Laughable that we think using tactical nukes won’t escalate to full out nuclear war. This is a niche specialty we don’t have to afford we have ballistic subs it’s enough.
CVF is vital to provide air cover for NATO naval task forces.
how are the F35A going to be refuelled mid air? AFAIK Voyager has no boom required for F35A.
These nuke missions won’t be going far, because i doubt other countries would want to assist in such a mission, unless it’s a full on NATO action, but then plenty of other countries would already be sending F35A with Nukes (Bel, NL, Ger and Italy)
Unless the UK develops its own cruise missile for its own sovereign plane, I don’t really see a point to this F35A + B61 gravity bomb for the UK. It’s expensive, not sovereign and there are more usefull things that are needed ie getting more F35B for the carriers or a soverign nuke on Tempest/Typhoon.
my 2 cents
Plenty of our NATO allies can provide this capability if needed, including the USAF 100th Air Refueling Wing based at RAF Mildenhall with their KC135 Stratotankers, which support the F35As at RAF Lakenheath amongst other duties.
ofc allies already provide air refuelling, but this is totally different since it’s a nuclear strike mission.
you think Germany would allow its tankers to refuel UK aircraft on a UK mission to nuke someone? for years, they were reluctant to send Taurus to Ukraine well after UK and France had been sending Scalp / Storm Shadow, it took an election and Trump to change their minds.
so please excuse my scepticism.
If we were ever deploying tactical nukes against Russia, it’s almost certainly in defence of NATO’s eastern borders, so yes in those circumstances they will provide refueling. Finland, Poland, Germany, Romania, Denmark, Belgium, Netherlands, Norway, Italy, Greece and Czech Republic all operate F35A; and many will have refueling capabilities, as will many others that operate F16s. Portugal and Spain are both potentially future F35 operators too.
And tactical nukes aren’t strategic nukes. We wouldn’t expect F35s to make it to Moscow and back. That would be Trident’s job if it came to it. Tactical nukes are for deployment against military targets closer to the front lines i.e. against an invasion force or the supporting logistics hubs.
I’m not sure I’m fully onboard with the tactical nuke thing though. I think the RAF should get F35As (but only when sufficient F35Bs have been procured), however they should be used for conventional strike roles and air defence against near peer threats (where Typhoon survivability is a concern). In particular F35As are well suited to SEAD missions, that would pave the way for Typhoons to operate in a safer environment.
A number of Voyagers could be modified with a boom. Anything is possible when the funds are suddenly available. Plus we have the USAF tanker fleet at Mildenhall for Lakenheath F35As. I’m sure an agreement could be made between the two Force’s. The US Navy make heavy use of Voyagers for F18s in the Middle East.
absolutely, yet i didnt see it mentionned in the SDR. just goes to show how shorsighted some decisions are taken without thinking it through properly
If it got to the point the US are involved then please, why would our F35s add anything to the already very hot war, there are more F35s at Lakenheath than the entire F35 fleet the RAF are likely to ever have. I really don’t understand the need of the RAF to be flying a US nuclear bomb to drop on Russia when the US are perfect capable of doing it themselves.
If it was a UK bomb, different matter, better to spend the money on more B’s and armaments for both the Typhoon and F35bs to make the UK able to contribute well in limited areas rather average across the whole range.
The German Govt have apparently expressed a preference for their F35A order to have Refuelling Probes fitted,to which LM are looking into.If this is delivered then it’s an easy win for a possible RAF order.If this is not possible then other Assets can be made available as others have said.
Lockheed Martin delay Meteor integration onto F35B again and we reward them with a purchase of F35As, potentially undermining Tempest in the process ? Genius.
yep – Laughable isn’t it.
The fear over undermining GCAP is very strange, considering that the other two partner nations in GCAP operate both the A and B F-35s in larger fleets than the RAF. Furthermore, GCAP is not intended to replace the F-35, but to complement it. GCAP is both confirmed and funded – this F-35A purchase, especially if it replaces a future B purchase, will not affect GCAP.
The other participants don’t have HMT to contend with…..
Both nations have major economic pressures from their own treasuries.
Why invest in a weapon system that is only ever useable for last resort retaliation? Without sufficient conventional forces we are pushing ourselves to actually using nuclearmas part of operations. Nuclear warheads can relatively easily be converted into free fall or glide bombs. It is a straightforward engineering problem. If they can be flown using stealth then to a certain extent they do not need to be precisely targetted either. A much better use of some of the money could be used to improve conventional forces and recreate a credible resilience, resupply capability and accompanying home defence.
The thoughts behind using something like the B61, is to make the other side think rather than as the route to escalation. Traditionally during the Cold War RAF aircraft stationed in Germany were tasked with either close air support (Harrier and Jaguar) or interdiction (Jaguar and Tornado). All three of these aircraft could have carried the WE177. But the doctrine then was to prevent the “Soviet” armoured juggernaut” ploughing through Germany. Today the rational over a tiered nuclear response is something the UK cannot do, as we retired our WE177 weapons in 1998. We can only respond to an act of nuclear aggression through the use of Trident. Which if used against Russia would definitely give the wrong signal. As they won’t wait to see if the missile is only carrying the one MIRV instead of the standard 8+, before they retaliate.
France I feel has the right tiered nuclear doctrine. Where they will use the ASMP against a target to bring the parties to the negotiating table, then if this doesn’t work they will escalate using their SSBNs. It also means that if a rogue state gets hold of a nuclear weapon and uses it against them. They can respond proportionally.
I totally agree that any form of nuclear weapon should not come at the expense of our conventional armed forces.
The assumption ‘makes them think’ is predicated on them actually doing so, or not taking the suicide option like some nationalities and religions seem to be willing to do! As you rightly say we have no scaleable or proportional capability. We need to boost our conventional capacity and then and only then can we start bargaining to get rid of all nuclear weapons (if feasible). And the only real state to worry about is Russia who could turn half the world into a nuclear wasteland if they saw fit. Bearing in mind that Putin has already threatened or hinted at this – “a world without Russia is not worth being part of or living in”. Rumours of purchasing F35A to drop dumb or guided bombs is perhaps a start of thinking rationally about defence.
I agree that a preferred deterrence solution would be to threaten an overwhelming conventional response. Something like a fleet of stealth B2 Spirit bombers might be enough; but Europe does not possess such a capability. The key thing, as the SDR points out, is that battlefield use of low yield nuclear weapons “ to terminate conflict on advantageous terms” in the belief that the West would negotiate rather than escalate, is Russian doctrine. So we have to have a credible like for like deterrent.
Exactly. I’m not pro nuclear, but they are there, and our principal opponents have them and with a dubious US ours and the French become more relevant. But not on their own! At least in the 70s we had a viable conventional force coupled with tactical capability. All lost just so that tax cut peace dividend could proceed.
NATO already has a credible like-for-like tactical deterrent. Either we trust the Americans to deliver it or we don’t. If we don’t and want a tactical strike weapon of our own, it has to be fully sovereign. Not a duel key F-35A solution.
So why would Russia think more/differently if we had the same system as Germany and Italy and Belgium, etc? Their calculation will be the same. What does America think?
That wasn’t the point I was trying to make. The point was, if we sent a Trident in response to the use of a Russian tactical nuke. Russia’s strategic command will be watching for the signs of a Trident launch, their standard response would be to spin up the ICBMs/SSBNs. But as the flight time could be less than 5 minutes. Will they be willing to take the chance that only 1 warhead has been loaded or immediately respond in kind? Would they believe the incumbent PM, who state the Trident only contains 1 nuke?
George, please could you advise on a matter of protocol. I have been posting here as Nick C for several years, although only intermittently depending on the subject. I now find another Nick C, with some interesting points, also posting on the site. Should you arrange for one or both of us to change our designation, or do we both have to live with a schizophrenic existence, which is fine until one of us disagrees with the other!
Advice please.
Hi Nick C! I think a result of the designation creation. I hope we weren’t taking each other in vain. I try to explain different points of view and new meanings and interpretations, especially if they are factually misleading.
Here’s a thought. If the first Nick C was registered before it’s not a lot to ask to simply to change your i.d. to something like Nick.C
Problem solved.
Helpful suggestion and lots of names we could use, but we can’t access any settings!
As suggested by Paul P, how about you become Nick.C? Then we can disagree if needed without becoming too schizophrenic!
We should not join the US nuke sharing but we should build our own bombs. This would increase the credibility of our nuclear deterrent and underline our independence.
The warheads are already ‘bomb-shaped’ for re-entry, it wouldn’t take much to reshape a casing and fins, assuming they would fit in a new aircraft of course.
I agree with what you say about the limited relevance of the carriers to UK self defence. But why does the RAF need F35A.? So far it has no UK air to air weapons integrated so would have to buy US missiles. Far better to order additional Typhoons capable of using AMRAAM, Meteor and Brimstone straight away. Eagle Nintendo at such a buy before the SDR was published but that seems to have disappeared.
We have already bought AMRAAM-D for the current F-35Bs.
Nintendo ? Wtf? Intended.
As previously stated, whilst the F35 could not be described as an Anglo American project, we remain the only tier one partner and produce approximately one sixth of each unit, so a further purchase would provide ongoing work for the UK component. Also the proposal to convert one carrier to Catobar is a bad idea. From memory the idea was mooted some years ago and the extra over cost was heavy to say the least. If done now it will be even more expensive and involve a lengthy period of downtime on one of the QEs.
Tier one partner hasn’t really counted for much in terms of weapons integration
You are right Nick-increasingly appears to be an empty title although this might also be a result of the cutback in the UK’s order for the F35
I remain unconvinced by an F-35A buy, especially as a truck for free-fall tactical nukes. It’s not a B-2 or B-21; the back end (and probably some of the side-on profiles) aren’t that far off a 4.5Gen jet, so likely to get picked up on GBAD radar. And you can’t maintain a front-on aspect to an enemy’s AAD bubble when you’re trying to penetrate into it to hit a target with a tactical nuclear gravity bomb. It’s a poor justification, and so far no-one’s been able to convince me otherwise. A Typhoon with a nuclear-tipped Storm Shadow would have better chances of success…
Aside from that, though, there’s delivery: We are not currently in the production queue for F-35A. We’d be at the back of the line, or paying to jump ahead. So when would we be getting IOC on that fleet? Assuming an understrength squadron of 8-10, I doubt it’ll be much before 2035. At which point, how long are we before we start transitioning to Tempest (in theory, at least)?
We should probably also ask what we’re getting out of F-35 in 2035 too: We’ll barely have had Spear 3 and Meteor integrated, JSM maybe if we’re lucky and we sign onto it, and no FC/ASW or Brimstone. They’ll probably (hopefully) have finally started the re-engine process- so we’ll be partway through sending our F-35B back for new engines to finally unlock the full-fat Block IV. If we’re lucky, our 10 F-35A will come with the new engines.
All of this, so we can have the honour of dropping US dumb nukes on eastern Europe if all hell breaks loose? Poor justification. I can, genuinely see the benefits of F-35. But the longer this Block IV process keeps stretching, and the more LockMart drag their heels on our sovereign weapons integration, the less sense it makes and less benefit it brings.
A better justification, and one I’d accept, is an Israel-style right to independently integrate our own weapons and suchlike in exchange for a buy of F-35A to replace the oldest Typhoons. That would be worth it.
Will the MoD remember that Voyager in its current guise cannot refuel F35A?
Or are they more demented than we thought and are happy to ignore that minor detail?
Need those 27 extra B first.
My prediction is they order far less, sadly.
On nukes, why the hell are we planning to go free fall! A stand off capability is needed.
Correct point. Would it not have crossed the minds of those looking at this problem that we could buy some of the French SAMP. We could put our own warheads on, and since it has already been integrated onto a Rafale surely it shouldn’t be beyond the wit of the engineers to integrate onto Typhoon. I seem to recall that Bae floated the idea of a two seat typhoon with conformal fuel tanks for greater range a few years back, although I am not sure if a demonstrator ever flew.
Typhoon has US navigation and communication system so selling of SAMP won’t happen. French are clear, SAMP is a package with Rafale: all or nothing.
Interesting, thank you.
Why are we even looking to deliver US nuclear bombs out of the NATO shared pool anyway? F35s at Lakenheath are perfectly adequate to deliver them and more of them there than ever likely to be in the RAF fleet.
Just think what the RAF having this capability is going to offer NATO compared with today, precious little I would think
Precious little is overstating it. I doubt it will reach that standard of utility. It will degrade NATO capability overall as the money will be taken from something actually useful.
100% agreed
Tactical nukes have questionable benefits if they are taken from the NATO pool (which really means borrowing US weapons). They will never be used without US authorization. The UK needs a sovereign nuclear capability again.
Get the Fleet Air Arm built up to take 70 plus F35Bs. The RAF then get the F35A, but have a centralised maintenance facility. Would probably help recruitment in the RAF,as people don’t join the RAF to serve on an Aircraft Carrier.
Yeh, I reckon you could move the senior ratings dining room and put a well deck in QE and POW; cancel MRSS and save a lot of money 😂
Rather than adopting the nuclear sharing model – is there any scope to leverage the special relationship to potentially adopt a similar set up that we have with trident? Where US supplies the delivery vehicle but we have independent control?
There is no delivery vehicle beyond the plane itself. I have absolutely no doubt that we would be able to integrate a UK nuke onto Tempest long before the Americans let us integrate a UK nuke onto the F-35A. If we could jump the gun, we would have done so with Meteor.
That leaves us with the possible option buying US freefall nuclear bombs outright along with the F-35A, without any end-user restrictions. Freefall bombs are not ideal, but that’s the only option. If the US agrees, and given our relationship, there’s a possibility it might, these bombs will need to be maintained on rotation in the US, just like Trident. We won’t do it ourselves because we are too cheapskate. Unlike with Trident warheads, we will have no means of ensuring that the US bombs even work, as we have committed not to test nukes. The ALIS system ensures that it’s difficult to fly an F-35 without using the system and that just in time spares will have to come via the Americans. In all practical terms we will still be functionally dependent on the US for our tactical strike. The problems lie with the F-35A more than with the bombs.
If we can buy US freefall bombs, we should plan to put them on Tempest, which will have a far greater operational range than F-35A. Exactly the opposite system to Trident. We’d have the delivery system and we’d trust the US not to sell us dud bombs until we can develop our own.
Why are we still buying US kit, given the actions of the clown in the White House.
Think HMG government need to put money were the mouth is .Unless they rise defence spending to at least 3% GDP I can’t see this happening .If F35A is ever order then I guess less F35Bs. Ironic that today NATO defence Minister meet Starmer and told the PM that unless the UK want to start speaking Russian then the UK need to start building more Tanks and Ammunition and rise defence spending to 5% .Can you imagine Starmer face . 😟
Frankly a horrible decision. The UK is over-exposed to US influence as it is, especially with regards to nuclear punch.
I cannot believe that we’d buy an entirely different air frame to facilitate THEIR nuclear deterrence, when our own is in such a dispicable state. The UK needs a truly independent nuclear arsenal that even the USA is obliged to respect.
We do not want to be an extention of the US military – not even as “part of NATO”. Their values do not align with ours or those of our neighbours.
The defeatest attitude of our govt is terrifying. This is NOT what reducing dependence looks like.
There’s so much wrong with this decision that it’s making me feel sick. Write to your MP’s people.
2002 plan was 60-90F35b and either 60 ‘c’ or 60 ‘a’ subject to CATOBAR decision. For a fleet of up to 150 ordered by 2012. Farcical that 23 years later the same concept is being debated.
Today however probably all part of negotiations with Trump on tarrifs overall.
Forget CATOBAR. Stick to F35B for our carriers. We should have gone down the CATOBAR option from day 1 – but the horse has since well and truly bolted. A minimum of 72 F35Bs would give our carriers significant punch. Regarding an F35A order, I think that’s a great idea. As much as it hurts me to say, I suggest it should be at the expense of another Typhoon order so our F35A order can be more significant. The F35A can deliver both free-fall tactical nukes as well as standoff non-nuclear cruise missile capabilities. Imagine if we had F35As to deliver our strikes on the Houthis. Less refueling and greater payload capabilities.
The Eurofighter Typhoon has a greater range than the F-35A.
Perhaps someone could answer my naïve question. Why can’t a typhoon carry a free fall or stand off tactical nuke? Previous RAF aircraft could? But now they can’t, after we gave up the ability. We would then at least have a sovereign capability. The answer obviously isn’t as simple as I imagine it to be!!
The STOVL requirement within the armed forces is for more than 47 active F35Bs.
Both carriers being operational in a time of crises would require 24-36 aircraft each.
The need to have a high performance aircraft able to launch and recover from a small airstrip is still a requirement. If 5-6 airfields are rendered inoperable by missile or drone strike due to a lack of GBAD then a STOVL air defence aircraft will be vital.
I’d suggest the MOD has to order an additional 36 F35Bs and 36 F35As to thicken out our order of battle, to enable operation of both carriers, provide a nuclear strike and SEAD role and replace the already scrapped typhoon tranche 1s.
If defence budget goes up enough I’d also suggest a small 24 aircraft typhoon order of latest batch design with best radar and equipment fit to see production lines through until Tempest/ GCAP.
Big question is this. Has the RAF tested the latest typhoon with it’s latest radar Vs F35? And if so is typhoon able to operate effectively against a 5th gen stealth jet? If not then no more typhoon. Order in enough F35s A+Bs (36 each) to then carry us through until Tempest