It is the only sensible starting point if this is the way to go. Development of other platforms and weapons will take a decade or more, if this is the future, this development will be started within the year with the aim to equip Tempest.Confirmation the UK is to buy F-35As, whose role will be to deliver nuclear weapons.
At the moment only 12 F-35As will be ordered.
So presumably they will be solely focused on the Nuclear strike role and will not have any other function.
The nuclear weapon to be carried is likely the B61-12.
So not an independent UK airborne nuclear capability.
UK to expand nuclear deterrent with US fighter jets capable of carrying warheads
Starmer to unveil purchase of 12 F-35A jets that can deliver tactical nuclear weapons, which may be kept at RAF baseswww.theguardian.com
UK Defence Force General discussion
- Thread starter t68
- Start date
Takao
The Bunker Group
Buying only 12 airframes? That (due to it's different sized internal bay) need all the RAF weapons to be trialled and certified again? That, while there are some similarities with the F-35B, offer little spares or training commonality? That can't be refuelled by RAF assets?
To carry, what, 4 nukes? Maybe 8 if the F-35 serviceability Gods are playing nice? That's not a nuclear deterrent, its a desktop review attempt at something.
The UK already has a nuclear deterrent, this idea simply takes money and focus from the conventional forces for little benefit.
Y
Yes correct it is the only sensible starting point if this is to be a future direction for our armed forces.
Terran
Well-Known Member
It’s actually maintaining of the existing Nuclear sharing agreements in NATO and the U.S.
The maintenance of that was as a tactical option. The Deterrent system has a high degree of overwatch on it. Silos and SLBM launches are easily detected. Where a Bomb or Cruise missile especially on a stealth would not set off the alarm until it detonated. In the other side of that coin it comes with a larger KT Yeild.
It’s a similar capability to the French. B61 has been classed as a Tactical Nuclear weapon with the current B61 mod 12 having a smaller blast yield than the Trident system. Official numbers for the mod 12 having 4 options .3kt, 1.5kt, 10kt and a max of 50 KT. Vs the British Holbrook warhead which is also dial a yield but a much larger max. The range is said to be 10-100kt plus each Trident is packing up to 12 warheads.
The Trident is a Strategic weapon it’s meant to destroy the enemy’s country. The B61 is a tactical weapon it’s meant to break a massed offensive. It’s not a Deterrent capability. The UK gave up its indigenous capabilities in this class back in 98 when it retired the We177.
In the past the U.S. partnered to integrate the launch capability of the B61 into the Tornato bomber but the same thing hasn’t happened with the Eurofighter. Neither the F35B or F35C are compatible. The integration isn’t as simple as testing if the bomb will sit on the wing but involves integration of technology to allow the Bomb and fighter to talk to each other particularly in regards to the Permissive Action Link. F35A has been integrated with the Link as an option where the Navy and Marines elected not to due to differences in doctrine.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Some more bad news for the Labour government on the defence front.
Healey quits as Defence Secretary over funding row
Healey quits as Defence Secretary over funding row
The devastatingly low readiness and availability of UK armed forces are entirely the result of 14 years of austerity government coupled with Brexit (COVID dint help but it is nowhere near as severe as austerity) , Labour can't actually fix this in anything less than a decade, no matter what they do.
Wholly year late post Batman (sorry), but the real reasons are almost certainly different than the nuclear mission.
F-35A has markedly longer legs and endurance. It is significantly cheaper to acquire. It has less maintenance demands (STOVL system).
Re aircrew and maintenance training - it’s basically the same, and there are plenty of people in both disciplines who have cross trained across A/B/C variants. While there likelihood that some of the UK weapons will need clearances for the A - wing mounted it’s a non factor. Software wise it’s a non factor - the benefit of F-35 having common mission systems. So it’s only clearing something like meteor from the A model weapons bay, which the Italians are doing anyway.
For the RAF, the A becomes compelling for the following reasons:
a) cheaper acquisition - you can buy 12 for the price of about 8-9 B’s.
B) legs to get to Europe/Baltics and back in a sortie.
C) more endurance - what does this mean for the OCU (where they are going to be primarily used)? More training reps per sortie/event.
D) more available…. More jets on the line every day.
With a) almost certainly being the main driver. But could the RAF/UKMOD just say this? Unlikely.
This type of argument is always bizarre to me.
A) make a premise of your own, completely unvalidated by any facts or official information.
B) present some reasons (again of your own) to support your own premise, again without a single official statement .
C) make a conclusion based on your own unsupported (officially) evidence as though it were the actual truth, present it as the obvious truth and then follow up with a classic "of course the officials won't say any of that".
A brilliant piece of conspiracy theory inventing!!
I would have thought if the reason was *not* the nuclear mission that it would have made more sense to purchase additional F-35B's or even Eurofighters. Purchasing F-35A's does the following:
- Adds a new type for maintenance, the B and A are not identical and do not share all the same parts.
- Adds a new type for pilot training, the B and A would have presumably have different operating procedures.
- A buy of 12 leaves no leeway for attrition, maintenance or training. Is it even a full squadron complement?
- Adds a new type for maintenance, the B and A are not identical and do not share all the same parts.
- Adds a new type for pilot training, the B and A would have presumably have different operating procedures.
- A buy of 12 leaves no leeway for attrition, maintenance or training. Is it even a full squadron complement?
You mean like the other 90% of the posts on this site that don’t include references?
F-35 cost per variant is widely known, with the lot 15-17 F-35A costing $82M compared to $109M for the F-35B, saving about $320M USD for a buy of 12… or about £240M.
Remarkably, and surely just a coincidence, this is the same UKMOD that sawed off 2x E-7As from that project (40% of planned capability) to save £200M (12% of program cost) A desperate move that has variously been described as a folly and perverse.
Similarly, Information that shows F-35 variant unserviceability and maintenance requirements is out there for those willing to look… an example being this fact sheet from LM showing the F-35A has an extended mean time between failure than the F-35B (10.4 hrs compared to 7.4 hrs) and similarly requires less maintenance man hours/flight hour (4.7 compared to 7.7).
There are sound, logical reasons to switch from B’s to A - that don’t entail picking up a nuclear mission. The hint is where the A models will primarily be assigned by the UK during routine training.
You’re overstating the difficulty given the common mission and aircraft systems and procedures. Yes - there will be different sparing required, but there are benefits still realised through aspects like infrastructure, aircrew and maintenance training and procedures, logistics chains, contracting solutions.
None of the issues you have flagged seem to have phased the RAF, the RSAF, the Italians or the Japanese who have all committed to a mixed fleet buy.
Last edited:
Is there any evidence whatsoever that the decision to buy F35A was not what was said?
Yours doesn't just NOT include references, you are just making things up in your head and then pretending it's real and drawing conclusions, classic conspiracy theory reasoning.
Sure thing buddy. The Defence minister quit a week ago due to inadequate funding and now the PM quits. But there’s no pressure on the UK MOd budget as a driving factor for acquisition and sustainment?
Anyone who has watched defence for a reasonable amount of times will understand how creative people can be when we get to the policy space.
What on earth has that post got to do with your original post? Buddy.
Your proposition was that the F35A were being bought for a different role than the one that was presented, and for that you provided no meaningful evidence what so ever and ended with , but they won't ever tell us the real reason ........