Hence the phrase ‘Release the football’.
Buying F-35 to utilise US nukes is just the actions of a madman - hitch your wagon to the most unreliable, isolationist, and actively anti-European government, and societal zeitgeist in NATO?
Clever stuff.
We should have decided to use Typhoon, and gone for a UK produced warhead on Storm Shadow/replacement.
The last thing we need is yet another piece of critical defence infrastructure that’s tied to the US for the next 40 years.
The Voyager thing is that when we were framing the capability requirement, the only aircraft we had that needed boom tanking was the C-17, and it was on lease and due to go back to the US within a few years. Paying out extra for a pure UK requirement would have been like buying a load of 130mm APFSDS ammunition on the off chance that we’d be able to squeeze it down the 120mm barrel of the Chalky 2’s…
Of course, unforeseeable stuff meant that within a few years the sums had changed completely, and our ASW and SIGINT assets all use boom tanking…
1 Like
As part of coalition operations, a boom would have been very handy to increase tanker availability, and now we have the RC 135 as well as the F35.
As for a UK nuclear weapon, I suspect the plans are probably still in a vault at Aldermaston.
1 Like
Having the capability to drop US controlled free fall nuclear bombs feels like a downgrade from what we had until 1998: but it’s still better than what we’ve had since then.
An MBDA-developed nuclear SS / SPEAR would clearly be superior to either.
F-35A feels like a stop-gap, but a good one. The RAF gets at least one sqn of fully-capable 5th gen FGA ac, with range and guns (assuming we sort out the AAR issue), rather than the compromise that’s on the carriers.
1 Like
Surely FS not FGA, as Strike aircraft have a nuclear attack capability Just like the Buccaneer S2?
100%
Did we not still have some things under the sharing scheme until 1992v
Yeah something for the 10 or so years until we get Tempest.
Nukes aside (and I think the idea that Trump will authorise the use of nukes to defend Europe is so laughable as to be utterly irrelevant) I know that the A has a slightly greater range than the B, and that the size of the bomb bays is greater, allowing the carriage of 2x2000lb bombs instead of the B’s 2x1000lb’s - but with 12 aircraft, is that slight increase in capability matched by the fleet-within-fleets costs, the loss of 12 airframes from the potential CSG pool?
Is the game worth the candle?
Personally, I think no, and then add in the politically issues, and it’s a ‘Haribo and Crack’ decision.
F-35A have guns too, which makes them worth every penny.
In addition, the fact that they can’t be deployed on the carriers means they’ll always be available to the RAF (which I see as a bonus). They’re also cheaper, despite being more capable. Half the order should be F-35A IMO.
When we were in Germany, the army during the Cold War had access to American nuclear rounds for rockets and artillery.
The initial start of V force we had access to American nuclear weapons for the Valiant fleet and for Canberra’s in Germany . Blue Danube, Yellow Sun and Res Beard were British built as were We177.
The RN had WE177s as well for either anti-submarine operations or against SAGs the Buccaneers couldn’t get to. During the Falkland war the RN transshipped its weapons to the RFA to avoiding the South Atlantic nuclear weapons agreements
The RAF when it had Thor missiles under Project Emily owned the missiles whilst the US owned the warheads under a dual key system. We never had that with GLCM, but we provided the defence for them, so if Maggie didn’t want them to fly the RAF Regiment would have stopped them.
2 Likes
make that 25+
I remember seeing the EFA model at Farnborough in 1984 - how did that turn out?
A £100m, declared to NATO for the nuclear role, airframe doing a low level gun run?
Oh yeah, I can really see that happening…
Now in the Museum at Cosford.
How long until we become the 303Sqn of the USAF?
Under NATO we always have been to an extent, as Andrew Brooke’s said in his book V Force, the target packages looked as if the RAF was route clearing for SAC following behind.
Well the F-35Bs certainly won’t be doing any, meaning options are limited.
The nuclear role was never going to be their primary use anyway. They’ll be used as lead-in trainers for the F-35B, among other things.
1 Like
A small number of aircraft, what happens when level 3/4 servicing is needed. We are restarting the fleet within fleet problems.
1 Like
Which is exactly why I’d prefer half the original order to be switched to F-35A, rather than just 12.
1 Like
I don’t see these F35 As being delivered for at least 10 years, realistically…
1 Like
And cancelled long before then, hopefully…
Which is why we need to use the Typhoon and a British equivalent to ASMP N using Storm Shadow as a basis, would save a lot of money in the long term.
1 Like