The government has been asked whether buying the F-35A and the Precision Strike Missile deepens British dependence on the United States, and has answered that collaborating with the closest defence ally will deliver significant capability, according to an answer given in Parliament.

Mike Martin, the Liberal Democrat member for Tunbridge Wells, asked whether an assessment had been conducted of the potential impact of the two purchases on Britain’s level of reliance on the United States.

Luke Pollard, the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry, said: “The Government assesses that collaborating with the UK’s closest defence and security ally on F35A and PrSM will deliver significant capabilities that enhance UK and NATO security.

“The Government’s approach is to build on the existing close cooperation with the US while also deepening partnerships with other allies and partners. While US-led, the F35 is a multinational programme, including significant UK equities. PrSM is a trilateral partnership with Australia. The Government’s approach enables the UK to maximise collective security, strengthen deterrence and advance our national interests in an increasingly contested strategic environment. Collaborating with the US on F35A and PrSM will also benefit UK prosperity and increase supply chain resilience.”

The answer does not say whether the assessment Mr Martin asked about has been conducted, nor does it address the dependence question directly, offering instead the arguments for the two purchases and the British industrial content in each.

British industry holds roughly fifteen per cent by value of every F-35 built according to some figures, others show it as much less though, and the F-35A buy was announced in June last year. The Precision Strike Missile is an American Army programme, and the answer describes British involvement as a trilateral partnership that also takes in Australia.

The Precision Strike Missile is a United States Army programme built by Lockheed Martin to replace ATACMS, fired from the same HIMARS and M270 launchers already in British service. The first increment has a stated range of more than 400 kilometres, with later increments intended to reach further and to attack moving targets at sea. Britain set out its intention to acquire the missile in the Strategic Defence Review, and the answer describes the arrangement as trilateral with Australia.

Craig Langford
Craig Langford
Trained as a mechanical engineer, Craig took an unconventional route into journalism, bringing with him a rare technical precision and analytical depth that continues to set his reporting apart.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

43 COMMENTS

    • Our relationship with the US and its industry runs much deeper than the sitting president. And in 2 years, he’s gone.

      • As is now becoming an increasing consensus amongst commentators and politicians alike (though the latter can’t really say it) ‘those who think this ends with President Trump are naive in the extreme’. Difficult to argue with that. That said as it will take many years to evolve away from the US and doing so overtly now can only threaten our immediate security, probably best to bite one’s tongue and continue cooperation where necessary while keeping actual commitment to a reasonable minimum while we up our cooperation elsewhere to eradicate it almost altogether over the next decade or so. Yes play the game until Trump has gone, where hopefully we will have a term of greater sanity to give us time to move away more safely. What I don’t want to see is the foolish presumption post Trump it’s back to the status quo like we naively did when Biden came in announcing America is back. Take the weapons we need till we can produce or obtain them elsewhere.

        Tbh I’m more concerned about future Skynet satellites from Lockheed Martin when presently we get them from Airbus at home, that’s a move in the opposite direction that’s unnecessary and holds distinct risks of interference, despite the Company’s reassurance. We have similar reassurance from Palantir in software yet some experts claim we wouldn’t even know if they stole our UK owned data, while they already did that in the Netherlands due to the Cloud Act.

  2. to be fair it’s harder and harder to trust the US, they are actively and on live TV betraying ukraine and siding with putin

  3. PrSM is too useful not to buy, it will bring alot of bespoke capabilities like long range anti ship strike in what’s is ultimately a small buy for the UK. The US has no capability to interfere with purchased missiles in British stockpiles as it uses inertial guidance and can operate using GPS or Galileio.

    That being said we should also be developing our own cheaper SRBM based on project nightfall. We can’t fight a major war in today’s age without a SRBM capability.

    As for F35A, if we want a larger airforce by the early to mid 2030’s then F35A is the only game in town. Personally I think it’s worth the risk, by the time we acquire them Trump will be out of office and we can lean very heavily on the next administration and LM to have full support and access to source code (basically what Israel already has)

    This is in the US and LM interest as well because interest in the F35 program is rapidly drying up. Only a handful of questionable countries like saudi are keen on buying it now, having the UK and BAE as a European alternative for maintenance and weapon integration might help keep F35 exports going.

    It’s worth remembering there are reported to be around 25,000 jobs in the UK reliant on F35 so keeping the program going is just as important for us as it is for the USA.

    • Totally agree Jim, we all have reservations regarding US equipment, but these two programmes really are vital to increasing IK capabilities in the short term.

      Sadly, with no new money ( of substance) forthcoming, I doubt either will be ordered before 2030.

      • Hi John, on F35A you are likely correct however we spent £190 million in July ordering our first batch of PrSM with first delivery expected in 2027.

        • Hopefully we deploy an M270 next year with PrSM to the Falklands. That will really f**k up Miles’s day when we have a 500km range ballistic anti ship missile.

          We can put one or two around the coats and track the Russian navy with them too 😀

          🫡🇬🇧😜

          • Pump the brakes on this one; there’s been no commitment to procuring Increment 2 PrSM, so any future anti-ship capability is strictly a hypothetical at this point.

            ‘Currently built by Lockheed Martin, the missile provides the capability to take out stationary enemy systems and weapons up to 500km away. Future development could enhance the capability further.’

    • reassuring that deploying the precision strike missile is independent of usa. suggest that we don’t buy kit where software is controlled by a foreign power or lockhead martin. i am sure away from the white house there maybe a good working relationship between the american and british forces but american top brass have not resigned or stood up to trump. i think when polaris was setup it was designed to withstand 2 presidential terms of a unfriendly administration.

    • Completely agree Jim, however we must buy enough F35B for the carriers as well, I can’t see us flying a CCA drone off the QE without a smaller catapult..

      I can see the RAF’s case for wanting F35A, and if we do order more, F35B should be transferred to the FAA permanently for carrier ops, completely doable once all F35A’s are delivered to the RAF.

    • Hopefully by the time the F35As arrive the Block 4 issue will all be sorted and Meteor, Spear 3 and others can be fully integrated into both As and Bs.

    • PrSM I agree with. F35A? I will push back here.

      You say that appetite for F35 is drying up, I’d argue there are some excellent reasons for this, and only some of them have to do with the jet itself. Unapologetic and frequent coercion of former allies, active support for European adversaries, active engagement in driving division and disrupting democratic practice throughout Europe, threats to invade NATO territory. I could go on. These are all things that matter.

      Notwithstanding that particularly grotesque elephant – we ought now to ask ourselves what F35A is for. The primary stated reason was to back up NATO’s nuclear sharing arrangement if I recall. A “capability” already provided by some 5 other countries – none of whom have a strategic deterrence in place. For their part in this program, they get the privilege of possibly dropping American bombs, with American permission on… who exactly? Russia? The same Russia currently doing battle in Europe, and whom the USA is actively assisting against the will of its closest European allies?

      It seems to me, that the notion of the US actually taking the decision to employ these weapons through European partners, is nothing short of fanciful. The general mood across Europe and other middle powers with regard to US dependence is one of deep regret. Just look at Canada. Additional and unnecessary purchases like this send exactly the wrong message to our real Allies, and do little to garner favour for us in the US – which I believe to be the sole purpose for which this proposal was designed.

      As it happens, I’m in favour of a tactical nuclear weapon for Britain, partly because the US underpins our strategic deterrence and I now view that risk to be intolerable, but also because it’s becoming increasingly obvious that more options are required to properly deter Russia.

      I don’t pretend to be an expert on the subject for a second, however Tempest is on the horizon, and Stratus Lo is maturing quickly. A nuclear tipped Stratus inside a Tempest internal bay sends exactly the opposite message to what is proposed. One of strength, resolve and ambition. Not only that, but it’s a much more sophisticated weapon, delivered via a far more appropriate airframe. Best of all, I understand such a weapon might be achievable without US leverage.

      I’m of the opinion that the world in which we now live requires exactly this level of course change. I’m not suggesting we rip up our American alliance, but the message even announcing such a weapon would send to allies and adversaries alike is perhaps needed now more than ever.

      For conventional? Just buy F35B. We painted ourselves into that ugly corner some time ago, and there’s no getting out of it.

  4. In reality the F-35A purchase is 12 aircraft for pilot training, so it would be absurd to suggest that this had a significant impact on the independence of our operational capabilities. Presumably Martin has an axe to grind.

  5. Some things are needed, some not. The F35A comes under the ‘not’ category and should be dumped; depending on America is a mistake where it can be avoided. Ask Ukraine. If we need airborne nukes then then make them fit Typhoon. PrSM is currently necessary but we need our own version, designed and manufactured in the UK. For now we have no choice.

    • Agree, just buy more F35B !
      All very well making them fit Typhoon, but they are US owned duel use bombs assigned to NATO countries, under US control and released if needed. We’d need to develop our own for independence from that.
      And in doing that, don’t develop a bomb, use a stand off missile.

      • As a pilot I would say the most difficult to master is landing at whatever level so what is the point of training F35b pilots to fly As ? If I was training to fly F35b I would want to master the hawk first and 35b simulator.. These 12 35a were about Starmer cozying up to his ” pals” in the EU and virtual signalling his EU credentials The RAF then faced with the horror of having to drop small nukes on Russia and the dire consequence for us came up with the for training idea. Cancel them and order more Bs would be the pragmatic and sensible approach. They are the two things our political leaders lack In abundance

      • But the F-35B is a short-range tactical fighter, with a very limited weapons load. It also has a big availability problem, due to its complexity, by far the poorest of the three F-35 versions for serviceability. And it costs 30% more per aircraft than the more capable F-35A!

        The latter has a bit more range, can carry twice the wespon load, has better combat performance, at it doesn’t have handicap of carting around a performance-denting heavy lift fan, and has the highest serviceability rate of the three versions.

        The RAF would have to be nuts to order more Bs, when they could buy better, cheaper and more useful As. With an F-35A wing, the RAF would regain an essential attack and SEAD capability, the latter lost with the non-replacement of the 72 Tornados. It would be a game-changer in defeating any Russian air threat in our neck of the woods.

        We just need another 60 As to restore some capability to RAF strike.

        62 F-35Bs, as planned, is more than adequate to man our one operational carrier. If the RN wants more, we’ll they can buy them from their own procurement budget if it is so essential. The RAF has spent more than enough money diverted to funding the Bs, which has reduced or squeezed out many other key elements of air power, such as reduction to 3 Wedgetails, inadequate number of Poseidon P8, shortfall in MQ9B order, etc.

  6. Maybe Martin should have a look at:
    USUK MDT
    Los Alamos / AWE
    AUKUS
    SSN reactor tech
    Trident
    Trident warhead
    CTF345
    CCC
    NOTC
    Sunray LFFB aerostat
    GPS
    UKUSA, so primarily GCHQ NSA including –
    JSSU and several joint entities and Orgs
    Sounder.
    Carboy.
    Countless classified SIGADs which link NSA to GCHQ by the hip.
    Menwith
    NRO sats we part pay for use of
    Stateroom
    Chinook
    C17
    Poseidon
    TLAM and associated LACM SA at Northwood
    RC135
    Dam Neck / IUSS ( SOSUS )
    DARC at Brawdy
    DSTL – DARPA links
    Warton BAES SPS – US Black aerospace / Palmdale
    And dozens more when concerned that a handful of F35A and a cutting edge PRSM bought in mere handfuls will make any difference to the deep co operation between UK and the US in military and intelligence matters.
    Axe to grind, and I’d guess he’d rather lay down on a red carpet to Brussels as well.

    • Great list mate I totally agree.

      However I think we do need to role out the red carpet to Brussels.

      Good thing about Brussels is once they agree to something it’s almost impossible for them to unagree.

      The US will only become more politically unstable. Nothing can fix their broken constitution or bring red and blue back together.

    • On a broader level, major British defense firms, like BAE Systems, Rolls-Royce, GKN Aerospace, and QinetiQ have substantial operations in the United States employing tens of thousands.

    • Hi Daniele. You will note that the vast majority of these programs pre-date Trumps first term, never mind his second term. Perhaps Martin is looking at the future through a different lens to what decision makers were when those contracts were signed – and so he ought to.

      We are uniquely and unacceptably exposed to an increasingly unreliable, unpredictable, and frankly adversarial foreign state. I believe in the face of current events, we are obliged to view this as the extremely difficult challenge it is, not to cave in to the enormity of it and accept some kind of vassal position, while the US rips apart the principles we’ve all taken for granted.

      • Hi Jay.
        I think most in military and intelligence circles go with the idea that these long standing arrangements and relationships continue whatever idiot is in charge.
        As I’ve said on here before, for right or wrong, we’ve so tied ourselves into the US system we damage ourselves badly in withdrawing, as well as the US, especially on the intell and nuclear sides where we are especially intertwined.
        Not saying it’s right or wrong, only that there’s no replacement I can see for most of that list if we cut.
        And with this Labour government in charge only interested in jobs and benefits, no money to replace these arrangements either unless it’s done over so many decades it makes it obsolete anyway.
        You have, for example, personnel from all UK services, the USAF, USN, and US Army, and civilian NSA GCHQ in the same building and same ops room in some places, how do you disentangle?
        I think we were effectively a vassel from the 80s already, even if politicians deflect, only differences are the imbeciles at the helm rather than two leaders like Reagan and Thatcher.
        Do we then become a vassal for the EU instead? That’s the Lib Dem position. I don’t know the answers! I only do the orbat and how things affect our military.

  7. Bolt on launchers and PrSM with anti ship capability on the LUSVs seems like a way to add deterrent capability. Long range strike, ability to deploy assets long distance, close chokepoints ( bottle in any resurgent Argentine navy).

    • The later planned PrSM variants will be able to strike Argentine airfields from the Falkland islands. M270 could be the most decisive fact in any future war. It could devastate any landing beach, take out naval Taskforce or knock out all Argentinas air bases.

  8. Is it just me, or does the article title suggest that the UK is defending a US dependence on PrSM and F-35A? Wouldn’t it be odd if the US didn’t depend on stuff we built ourselves? And why would the UK care that the US is dependent on PrSM and F-35A? This site seems to like writing weird, click-baity titles like “Such and such opens fire”, when they’re just holding an exercise, but this title takes the cake.

    • I don’t think this one is intentionally baity (unlike the ones relating to exercises). More likely, this looks like someone’s attempted to shorten:

      ‘[The] UK defends [its American] reliance on [the subject of] F-35A and PrSM’

      :which is far too wordy as a headline, but is a bit clearer in meaning.

  9. The F35 juggernaut is unstoppable. Vastly more expensive to run than expected, complete with lower availability. What’s not to like?

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here