The UK’s planned air-launched nuclear capability for its F-35A Lightning II aircraft will rely on US-controlled weapons under NATO’s nuclear sharing arrangements, the Ministry of Defence confirmed.
Responding to a parliamentary question from Conservative MP Mike Wood, Minister of State for Defence Luke Pollard reiterated that the nuclear weapons assigned to NATO’s dual capable aircraft mission are United States assets and remain under US control and custody.
“As confirmed when the Ministry of Defence announced our intention to participate in NATO’s nuclear mission, the nuclear weapons allocated to the NATO dual capable aircraft nuclear mission are United States nuclear weapons and the US retains control and custody over them, as the UK does with its own nuclear weapons,” Pollard said in his written response.
He added that any potential UK participation in the NATO mission would be subject to political authorisation.
“The NATO DCA nuclear mission would operate under the orders of NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Europe, when authorised by NATO’s Nuclear Planning Group, through which Allies exercise political control over the mission,” he stated. “The UK would always retain the right to participate, or not participate, according to a political decision by the UK Prime Minister.”
A waste of scarce resources. Nothing more than a political ploy for the benefit of government and the “trade deal”.
Agreed. And for Starmer to announce something to NATO in Paris while in reality continuing to cut the military.
If they were serious, which they are not, order 72 B then announce the intention of buying 60 odd A.
But there is no money, and tens of billions are allocated to Tempest, so, as usual, the military gets on with what it can get.
The idea which has merit is that the F35A is much cheaper and less maintenance intensive but can be used for the OCU squadron. Having an OCU squadron of scarce £100 fighters is a waste of money but this way the OCU can have a war time role without the need for expensive inclusion of a new aircraft type in service.
It makes a lot of sense and is the easiest cheapest way for the UK to get access to tactical nuclear weapons.
If we get to the point of dropping nuclear weapons from F35’s then no one will care about the OCU.
Training wise, it does.
F35 was meant to be about enabling our Carriers.
Less B might be mitigated by UCAV, or it might not, going by HMG grandstanding and a long list of UCAV Drone programs that get highlighted and then cancelled.
Still a gimmick at the end of the day for me.
He has nothing to show NATO otherwise beyond Trident.
In an age of smart munitions all tactical nuclear weapons are a gimmick.
This way we can have the gimmick and it doesn’t cost us much
Agreed in full , would like to see a few more say a total of 16 ‘A’s , a 12 aircraft squadron plus a reserve. Would make it a special missions squadron too and not just have a nuclear role . Have always been not so keen on F35A for UK as was concerned it would be to the detriment of carrier strike and the CSG but can live with this plan as actually it should free up some ‘ B’s by releasing those tied to the OCU. As I understand it the next tranche involved in this buy will be for 25 aircraft , 12 F35A and 13 additional F35B which when added to the existing 48 we should have by end 2026 will give us some 61 frontline F35B, more than enough to fill up the on call duty carrier and in extremis the second at a push.
That would be useful, if we were indeed serious about air power, we would be ordering enough of both types for 4 squadrons of each on top of upgrading all our Thypoons and fully funding Tempest development.
Of course, if we had 3.5% on defence now, that would be doable….
Starmer and Co. are constsntly making announcements but not moving forward. Not unusual for Westminster of course. The danger is Reeves and her cockeyed approach to the economy. Everytime she does something we end up with fewer vacancies, more lay offs and more borrowing. How are we going to re-equip whan we’re broke. As usuak defence is only a “priority” when a sound bite is needed.
Agreed. Possibly both governments low grip of understanding defence and raf making a play.
Nail on head, I think, Simon…
So we need our own air launched nuclear weapons! Given the nature of US involvement in NATO under their current regime this capability is perhaps a bit pointless. Let us have more Typhoons instead.
No
No what?
I have said before that the Trident W76-2 tactical 6 to 7 kt warhead would be the quickest, cheapest way for the UK to regain tactical nukes. Package it in a Paveway IV body with the JDAM-ER wingkit & it can be launched by RAF Typhoon & RAF/FAA F-35.
May be a plausible, relatively low-cost, interim capability. Would not preclude the development of a more sophisticated delivery system, either by the UK alone or in conjunction w/ France in the foreseeable future. Key feature: independent control. Serious question which cannot be definitively answered, short of actual warfare conditions. Would a hypothetical future POTUS risk the destruction of the US, if convinced a conflict could be contained to ENATO territory by refraining from employing tactical nukes? Several past Presidents would undoubtedly have met the challenge: Eisenhower, Kennedy, Reagan, Bush (The Elder). Future Presidents??? Sorry, if counseling HMG, would absolutely recommend an additional, independent, airborne capability. Participation in NATO DCA nuke mission is quite reasonable, but would not necessarily bet the farm on the construct. Forecasting the future is an admittedly imperfect art. 🤔
The same with a UK developed tactical nuke, not a cat’s hell of a chance of If being integrated into a U.S IP owned F-35A!
The problem is if we want a seat at the big table we’ll then we need to make a symbolic gesture. A dozen A version of the f35 with US controlled weapons is all it is. A bloody expensive gesture.
We don’t need anything extra to keep a seat at the table! Lets boost conventional capability to lessen the likelihood of only being left with an all or nothing M.A.D. response.
We are one the founding members of NATO, without tactical nukes we have less influence. Its all about politics and prestige.
SWe haven’t had ‘tactical’ nukes for a very long time. But, you are right it is all about politics and prestige on a world stage. Completely ignoring the fact that the likelihood of having to resort to nuclear increases as we cut back on conventional defence. And relying on that also exposes us more and more to below the radar coercion.
So give the 12 RAF F-35A, AARGM-ER/JSOW-C or JSM. All off the shelf options.
I am sure we have ‘spare’ warheads that could be adapted!
UK has a nuclear ballistic boat permanently at sea not a gesture just fact putin has to live with
‘Air launch’ = free fall bombs ( low tech)
Air launched from High Tech 5th gen Stealth Jets though.
Would they be internally mounted/carried or would they need to be mounted externally? If carried externally how would that impact the F35 stealth capability?
They won’t be used as a dumb free fall bomb, as they will be fitted with a tail kit. Which like Paveway, will give the weapon some stand-off capability. The glide range though will be determined by the F35’s release speed and height.
How is this news? Obviously US tactical nukes need US authorisation to be used. If we had decided to resume developing our own tactical nukes then that would be news, given that we retired them 30 years ago.
This is all gesture politics by the Starmer Regime. A pointless exercise. Fit a few Tomahawks or something else with a tactical warhead. Why should a pilot have to fly over a target to drop a gravity bomb in 2025? I seem to recall discussion a few years ago about Storm Shadow having a sub strategic nuclear capability if the warhead was small.
As for Tomahawks of course that would require a few Astutes to be operational……the circus is still in town.
Tomahawk is a U.S developed and IP controlled warpon. No chance in Hell, the U.S would let us modify it!
OK I’ve said this before so nuke me. these small bombs will be dropped on friendly territory on top of russian invasion force. assuming we are not bombing mother russia lead to outright nuke exchange. better optics if europeans nuke their own land
It’s unlikely Russia will be stupid enough to gather its invasion force all in one place. Could be wrong though. Tactical nukes will more likely be used on key transport infrastructure hubs. Where their use has a massive effect on Russia’s ability to support and resupply its front line forces.
Utterly pointless ‘capability’.
Still such a dumb move!
Switching funds for 12 F35A means 12 less that are carrier capable and opens the door to the persistent LM / RAF lobby for more, certainly at the expense of any further F35B’s and potentially even jeopardising GCAP numbers / in-service date.
And all so we can save relatively paltry sums for an OCU of air-frames that’ll probably never be armed, with only a theoretical ability to carry US controlled nukes.
All at a time when there’s a growing list of serious defence priorities being unfunded in an even more dangerous world.
Madness!!!
Or is this an expensive way of ensuring that the US keeps its bases in the UK?
Confirm UK stop playing poodle to US. Independant UK making its own decisions for UK. Being strong and assertive commands respect not crawling on belly. Playing being a state of US not good for business the MOD needs proper men running the show not yes men and please sir men..
Yes, exactly!👍
The USA wouldn’t have to invade the UK to gain its 52nd state after Canada. It’s already here, tight in our midst, right in our defence infrastructure. God help us all!
Beyond stupid. So we are effectively storing weapons for the USA, we will risk our own planes and our own pilots for the USA.. this is crap and clearly the same level of intelligence as paying Mauritius to invade the Chagos islands despite the desires of those loyal islanders. Stupid beyond measure even before you remember that trump is a kremlin asset totally understand the control of putin
If we can’t have an independent air launched system then why , bother . This is just a sop to the US .