Defence Minister Lord Coaker clarified that while the UK controls the deployment and use of its F-35A aircraft, any American nuclear warheads they may carry under NATO’s nuclear sharing arrangements would remain under US custody and require US authorisation for release.
Speaking in the House of Lords on 1 July, Coaker stated unequivocally, “His Majesty’s Government have complete control over the operational use of all the United Kingdom’s weapons systems, without needing to consult or gain approval from other Governments or third parties. This includes the nuclear deterrent.”
Lord Empey challenged that assertion by highlighting the reliance on international supply chains: “All weapons systems require maintenance and require to be renewed. It is my understanding that not all of that process takes place in the United Kingdom… How independent is ‘independent’?”
Coaker replied, “Independent means what it says. We can use all our weapons systems in the way that His Majesty’s Government choose to. Of course there are arrangements about how you maintain that and what you do, but independence means independence.”
Further scrutiny came from Lord Wallace of Saltaire, who questioned how much real autonomy the UK possesses given that “we have compromised the delivery system with dependence on American missiles” and that the new air-launched nuclear capability “will also have an American warhead.”
Coaker responded, “The strategic nuclear deterrent is completely operationally independent. It cannot be used without the agreement of the United Kingdom Prime Minister.” On the F-35A jets, he said, “That forms part of the nuclear mission of NATO… both the strategic deterrent and the fighter deterrent of the 12 F-35As will require the authorisation of the United Kingdom Prime Minister.”
Baroness Goldie pressed the key point: could the US refuse consent for the use of its warheads? Coaker acknowledged, “Of course the authorisation of the use of those missiles remains US-controlled… US nuclear weapons remain subject to US approval.” He stressed that these weapons would be used only under NATO procedures: “The authorisation for the use of those weapons within the context of a NATO mission has to be agreed by the NATO planning group and the UK is part of that.”
The minister described the F-35A decision as a response to today’s security environment: “The decision to go ahead with the F-35A, with its dual capability, is in light of the changed strategic geopolitical context in which we operate.”
Lord Reid of Cardowan, who had previously overseen the removal of gravity bombs in 1997, said he now supported their return: “I fully accept that the world has changed, so I have no objection to now maintaining or restoring that capacity.”
Coaker confirmed that the acquisition of F-35As would not undermine the carrier strike force. “We have 41 F-35Bs, and by March 2026 we should have 48… an additional 27 aircraft, of which 12 will be F-35As and 15 will be F-35Bs.” He explained, “The F-35As will go to that group, which will free up the F-35Bs that are currently doing that training exercise with them. So the carrier and others will always have the full complement of F-35Bs that they need.”
Lord Stirrup, former Chief of the Defence Staff, underlined the importance of alliances: “To be too nice on the point of purely national capabilities does not make sense.” Coaker strongly agreed, calling the US “our most important ally… the ally that we depend on to work with to guarantee our security in Europe and across the globe.”
When Lord Sterling raised the urgency of nuclear crisis decision-making, warning “It can take place in hours,” Coaker stressed calmness over speed: “Whether it is nuclear or any other capability, but particularly with nuclear, you have to be calm, rational and reasonable about it.”
Finally, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock raised the Scottish National Party’s nuclear stance. Coaker replied, “What the SNP stands for is completely and utterly incoherent.” He recalled that in 2012, SNP members resigned over the party’s attempt to be anti-nuclear while also supporting NATO membership.
“It seems to me that the SNP policy is that it accepts NATO’s nuclear umbrella and the security that that brings but does not want the nuclear weapons themselves to deliver it.” He added, “In George Orwell’s famous terms, it seems to be ‘NATO nuclear weapons good, UK nuclear weapons bad.’”
The headline describes the only way they can be deployed within the constraints of the NPT. NATO’s nuclear sharing arrangements have been in place for decades so I’m not sure why the Defence Minister feels the need to provide further clarity. But then Lord Wallace and Baroness Goldie seem to lack a rudimentary understanding of these matters and presumably couldn’t be bothered to spend 10 minutes on Google familiarising themselves with the difference between sovereign and shared capabilities- preferring instead to demonstrate to the House an embarrassing dearth of what should surely be common knowledge.
Pointless questions about a capability that doesn’t exist. We won’t even think about getting these planes for another seven years and it will take atleast five years to stand anything up from then and these 12 aircraft will be completely taxed providing the OCU so when will they train for the nuclear mission?
This seems like little more than a gimmick cooked up by someone in the RAF desperate to get something other than F35B. It was sold to the politicans on the basis that it will be cheaper (which it won’t) and it will provide a tactical nuclear deterrent for the UK (which it won’t) and it will get a nice easy win for the NATO summit and impress Donald Trump (I’m pretty sure he didn’t notice nor does he care)
I’m really surprised someone with as much experience as George Robertson got hood winked into this however I suspect the defence review was stating that we should have F35A (a lot more than 12) and we should look to participate in NATO nuclear sharing and some bright spark just through the idea of using the OCU at the last minute after the review was conducted and got rhe announcement made in time for the NATO summit.
Some precedents for this. In the late 50s’ and early 60s’ Canberra B Mk 8s’ were used (allocated to NATO?) in 2TAF, initially with American weapons.
I think you are absolutely spot on Jim. This seems to be a fudge between trying to please Trump by putting more power effectively in his pocket over us, arse licking in reality, pleasing the RAF who always wanted F35A giving them the carrot of more (but in reality only the Oliver Twist sense) and giving the impression the Govt, after its tough war footing talk, that we are doing something decisive in light of the Review, responding and buying new kit when in reality we are not as the Typhoon silence really shows. Sadly typical Labour, typical UK Govts generally and in reality probably makes us more of a nuclear target without any increase in our actual national deterrence, or even arguably maintains the level we have, if one accepts Putin’s influence over Trump and the unpredictable scenario of what follows makes US permissions unlikely and only increases our role as US cannon fodder for their own ultimate protection as one presumes Belarus is for Russia. Happy days.
Even 12 F-35A become useful if you buy 3 dozen JSM for them. About $75-80m all in.
I have no comments.. Total waste of money like buying a car with no wheels.
Stirrup.
Like West, I turn off whenever he speaks.
Both presided over cuts aplenty while spinning away that the forces wouod then be better prepared “for an uncertain world.”
Seeing as though how close Trump is to Putin this should be worrying
Indeed you can guarantee that not unlike giving the Iranians permission to attack a US base, or Trump ramping up wars to claim he is stopping them later, if it got down to the edge of nuclear Armageddon Trump, and likely any MAGA fundamentalist follow up puppet would arrange token nuclear strikes on parts of Europe and Russian so both can claim victory using the threat of nuclear weapons on our soil (forgetting conveniently we don’t control them) as an ex use for letting lose. Right out of the Trump ‘Art of the Deal’ on steroids with his unique touch of dementia. Geez he would expect a Nobel Peace Prize for it too, having no doubt given safe haven to the Committee on that very understanding. Talk about the Govt being played.
Some imagination mate.
Do you sell these strawmen too, or are they only for personal use?
I would like to see us build our own bombs and then use them instead of the US/NATO ones. This would give us a true sovereign air delivered nuclear capability allowing the UK to fully exercise tactical deterence. Its not like we cannot build our own warheads…
Well that would be the logic, but hey that costs money so instead we go for an imaginary deterrence instead that’s right down Starmer’s spinning street.
just my humble opinion==dump it.??
How is us having control of the weapons causing an issue with the non proliferation as the UK already has nuclear warheads and produce our own if we want to.
I personally don’t see the point to all this anyway, it adds zero to the UK defence, the US owns the weapons and decides if they should be used, 20 to 30 or more F35s take off from Lakenheath to drop them so I’m not sure where 3 or 4 from Marham fit in.
As I say above it helps the Americans in giving them an extra layer of cannon fodder protection should things kick off by stopping any nuclear conflict before it reaches the border if the US or Russia. Token warfare seemed only a minor side effect of big power conflict a decade+ ago, now it’s become a primary manipulative tactic under this President so increasing Britain becomes a greater nominal threat while in reality it isn’t, looks like a page from this textbook that I can’t help but think was Trump inspired, be it directly or naively otherwise from UK Govt.
Absolutely no point in having US control, we’re already in the bomb having club.
And they’re just free fall bombs. Why not something powered, like ASMP/nuclear Storm Shadow or with a glide kit to give greater standoff range? Was the Typhoon ever cleared for nuclear delivery as don’t the Italian’s have this capability with theirs?
At least the German Eurofighters dont have the capability. That is why Germany is getting the F35 in the first place anyway and why they still use Tornado. I dont know regarding italy.
Anyway everything said makes sense. Nuclear Sharing is a tactical Nato Mission under US command.
Indeed a factor that nly adds to the reality that their capabilities are limited and already exists as a deterrent, our addition adds little if anything to it, while increasing our exposure as a target the Russians will politically be licking their lips over. Ironically only the presence of US personnel in relation to these weapons (and more generally) offers a deterrence factor not the weapons themselves. So let’s hope they don’t in any emergency remove them and not the bombs.
If this was 12 F35A in addition to our full complement of F35B then im sure we’d be all for it.
As it is, its a cut to our capabilities when we’ve all been promised increases.
No purpose in having an American controlled nuclear free fall bomb.
Totally agree with both Simon and BigH, all style over substance for political fluffery that suggests Govt naivety, propaganda and manipulation under ‘Daddy’s’ ultimate influence. We need to get real and instead we get mere mind games from our leaders when in reality they want to look like they are doing things when they do t want to spend the money to do actual things while they hope that they can muddle through the Trump Prexidency in the hope something better replaces him (vane hope?)or at least he gets his wings clipped in the mid terms, (a temporary anchor?)
Exactly – none what so ever. It’d might as well be a very expensive rock for all the good it will do us.
” … the ally that we depend on … “. So, not independent then.
I thought we’d done away with this nuclear bomb daftness and acknowledged that this F-35A acquisition was to more cheaply support training than running our -Bs all the time?
Trying to drop free-fall nukes is a fool’s errand, so who cares if we need America’s permission to do it? We won’t be proposing the mission for their approval in the first place.
We’re much better getting some T5 typhoon and paying France to integrate their nuclear cruise missile onto it. I’m willing to bet it’s the more survivable delivery option end to end. And France would probably actually sell us the nukes and give us operational control of them…
If the US has control of the bombs, why are we subsidising the US by providing the US with a dozen aircraft bought from the US and that reduces the money available to buy the aircraft that the UK needs?
Apart from the fact that free fall weapons are pretty useless as a nuclear deterrent, we need to control them totally. Either produce a British owned weapon – preferably attached to a missile – or leave the airborne deterrent to others!
So we’ll be using an aircraft produced by an increasingly unreliable ally for which we don’t have design authority and carrying weapons that aren’t ours. Is that a gpod thing? SurelyTyphoon with stand off weapons like Storm Shadow or its successor would provide sovereign capability.
I lvoe subsidising the USA’s nuclear deterrence at a time when ours is in tatters – I just love it.