Re-arming the UK: What equipment? and how much?

Reuben James said:
I mean, isn't this exactly how reaching 5% was proposed for most NATO nations? AFAIK, the intention was to spend 3.5% directly on the armed forces and spend 1.5% on infrastructure critical to national security. Those combined would give the 5% mentioned in the article. This isn't just an idea from Starmer, it's an idea from NATO allies.

As to the other thing, I'd argue that China have been a responsible nuclear power. I mean, what have they done that other nuclear have not to challenge that status? You could suggest that the procurement of nuclear-capable effectors is irresponsible, but both France and the US are doing the same, and the UK is at least considering it.

I'm loath to trust the Telegraph on either of these issues.
Click to expand...
The Telegraph the only paper that would declare gravity now meant things fly upwards and be perfectly straight faced about it.
 
zen said:
Then let's shut up about this.
You want nukes for UK aircraft, then we fund our own, build them and intigrate them at our expense on our platforms we own.
Not beg and borrow from the US, who will cut us off at the knees for their domestic reasons.
Click to expand...
Or we co-develop them with France.
 
starviking said:
May be programmatic waste, but if it keeps a certain president ‘on side’, it may be worth it in relation to the wider economy.
Click to expand...
And I suspect it's precisely this.
A Defence Tax on the UK.
Like Athens 'Delian League' exacting ever more out of it's members. Not for their protection but for Athens to profit.

12 is an inadequate number and either that's all that can be made available at this time, or it's all we can afford. It had better be the former and more be planned. All eating into GCAP funding to crash that 'independent' effort.

Frankly I see little military logic in such a number.

F-35A means B61. There's no possibility of any UK alternative or indeed any other alternative nuclear weapon.
So dual key, and completely NATO....completely US control.

A colossal failure of leadership in the UK Establishment and a humiliation.
 
zen said:
And I suspect it's precisely this.
A Defence Tax on the UK.
Like Athens 'Delian League' exacting ever more out of it's members. Not for their protection but for Athens to profit.

12 is an inadequate number and either that's all that can be made available at this time, or it's all we can afford. It had better be the former and more be planned. All eating into GCAP funding to crash that 'independent' effort.

Frankly I see little military logic in such a number.

F-35A means B61. There's no possibility of any UK alternative or indeed any other alternative nuclear weapon.
So dual key, and completely NATO....completely US control.

A colossal failure of leadership in the UK Establishment and a humiliation.
Click to expand...

Eating into GCAP funding? Will the procurement of just 12 F-35A fighters actually make a difference to GCAP? Both Japan and Italy are also purchasing F-35A whilst maintaining their commitment to GCAP. British defence spending is set to climb continuously till 2034/35, so overall funds shouldn't be a major problem.

I'm not a fan of this decision, I'll add. It feels like political theatre and not like a way of actually boosting Britain's warfighting ability in any serious way. After all, with just 12 jets, these aircraft will be exclusively used for nuclear strike, and so the RAF gains none of the conventional advantages of the F-35A anyway.
 
Reuben James said:
Eating into GCAP funding? Will the procurement of just 12 F-35A fighters actually make a difference to GCAP? Both Japan and Italy are also purchasing F-35A whilst maintaining their commitment to GCAP. British defence spending is set to climb continuously till 2034/35, so overall funds shouldn't be a major problem.

I'm not a fan of this decision, I'll add. It feels like political theatre and not like a way of actually boosting Britain's warfighting ability in any serious way. After all, with just 12 jets, these aircraft will be exclusively used for nuclear strike, and so the RAF gains none of the conventional advantages of the F-35A anyway.
Click to expand...
Out of interest what would people actually consider an effective minimum number for the role to be done properly not in this half arsed way.

What’s depressing is I think whatever other party was in power they would probably made the same or very similiar decision, when it comes to dealing with the US they all seem like nodding dogs.
 
Twelve doesn't feel enough to have a sustainable unit AE in the long term. Plus it does nothing to support the carrier air group. On the other hand - since the NATO nuclear force is unlikely to ever be used, you have to be pragmatic and only have 12 F-35As means you're not over-committed to a niche role with a niche aircraft. So I'd rather 12 than 24.

Assuming these are based at Marham for logistical/support reasons, it's hard to see how these will fit into the current joint-service Lightning force. Hopefully they will form up a new squadron (or what's the betting 617 swaps its Bs for As) rather than converting a Typhoon squadron and then having Typhoons laid up in store.
It does raise questions for tanker support too.
 
Hood said:
Twelve doesn't feel enough to have a sustainable unit AE in the long term. Plus it does nothing to support the carrier air group. On the other hand - since the NATO nuclear force is unlikely to ever be used, you have to be pragmatic and only have 12 F-35As means you're not over-committed to a niche role with a niche aircraft. So I'd rather 12 than 24.
Click to expand...
There seem to be some claims that the F-35As might be able to take on some of the training burden from the F-35B OCU. Which seems unlikely if they're primarily meant as a political symbol nuclear delivery platforms.

Given that 74 aircraft were expected to bring the F-35B fleet up to four squadrons, I have a feeling that this might turn into one F-35A and three F-35B squadrons. This would make the 'at least 12' be the number of operational aircraft, with a somewhat larger number actually bought. At the expense of F-35Bs, which is disappointing.
 
It is the price worth paying Yellow Palace, we could always buy more once the initial 12 get delivered. So in the end we could end up getting at least 3 squadrons worth of F-35As.
 
FighterJock said:
It is the price worth paying Yellow Palace, we could always buy more once the initial 12 get delivered. So in the end we could end up getting at least 3 squadrons worth of F-35As.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure that reducing the UK's usable 5th-generation strike fighter force by 25% so the RAF can babysit nukes at Marham in case they're needed is a price worth paying. Depends what the cost of not doing it was, of course.
 
Remember the Canberras were used in much the same way but they had the Mk-48 nuclear bomb until the Blue Danube atomic bomb was ready for the V-force, I could see the F-35s being used in the same way until we get the GCAP/Tempest ready for service
 
There's yet been no mention of future additional nuclear delivery systems or 'new' nuclear warheads beyond Astrea a.k.a mk5 for Trident.

Now arguably there could be work since the Trump’s meeting wirh Zelenski this year that is developing such concepts.
Much as both FADS, IADS and IBCS (not the proper acronym but my memory fails me) includes strike back capabilities. These could gain nuclear low yield 'tactical' warhead armed systems.

Now if we see such announcements, then F-35As properly slot into a plan as the interim solution until such developments can reach service.

But where is the hint even of such thinking?
 
At first sight this seems a sensible return to the arrangements we had until WE177 entered service.
B61 use by NATO and US aircraft is very much a political rather than a military decision. In that context 12 F35As (probably available from US stocks) allows the RAF to join in NATO B61 planning.
Blue Water was replaced a decade later by a handful of Lance SSM in BAOR. This seems as reasonable.
Will NATO decide it needs to match Iskanders with its own weapons as was done with SS20 being countered by Pershing and Cruise?
I think in the UK's case we should not go to land based missiles in Berkshire. Hypersonics on SSN would be better.
 
uk 75 said:
I think in the UK's case we should not go to land based missiles in Berkshire.
Click to expand...
I think Lance can be succeeded by ATACMS or PrSM with a nuclear warhead.

Considering the range. UK basing isn't viable.
But Germany or better yet Poland.....
 
Flyaway said:
This article makes a good point about the F-35A refuelling requirements.
Click to expand...
I don't think it is a good point at all. The As will primarily be used for training, saving money in acquisition and in per hour flight costs. If they are ever required for a nuclear strike then there will either be boom tankers available for the forward deployed aircraft or the respective airfields will have already been nuked by ballistic missiles anyway.

The UK does already operate a large number of aircraft that cannot be refuelled by their Voyager fleet such as C-17, P-8, E-7, RC-135 and the Voyager itself. Interestingly the UK today could not execute Operation Black Buck as it did in 1982 given its tankers cannot refuel each other (ignoring that there are also no heavy bombers left anyway...)

Ordered some additional boom equipped tankers in the future, as the article suggests, makes more sense.
 
I wonder what refuelling port they'll put in the GCAP?
Japan's KC-767s use the Flying Boom, Italy's KC-767s have a mixed boom/podded drogue system. It's only really the RAF who are the odd one out. Even more reason to get AirTanker to buy some booms.
 
Hood said:
I wonder what refuelling port they'll put in the GCAP?
Japan's KC-767s use the Flying Boom, Italy's KC-767s have a mixed boom/podded drogue system. It's only really the RAF who are the odd one out. Even more reason to get AirTanker to buy some booms.
Click to expand...
Probably no reason they could not do both but all depends on how they design the aircraft and how much additional testing they want to do. The MRTT can transfer a lot faster via boom, nearly 3 times the speed per here, but the receiving aircraft needs to have the pumps to handle the increased flow. Typically an F-15 or F-16 isn't much faster on the boom compared to a probe and drogue per the pump restriction.
 
Hood said:
It's only really the RAF who are the odd one out. Even more reason to get AirTanker to buy some booms.
Click to expand...
AirTanker ends in March 2035 before GCAP though? So RAF can get whatever tanker variants it wants. With all the money from 3.5% GDP budget they can even get some gold plated toilets on them :)

Ozair said:
The MRTT can transfer a lot faster via boom, nearly 3 times the speed per here,
Click to expand...
It's also possible to just have bigger hoses to get higher refuel rates, as the UK has done previously. But as you note, it's generally receiver limited anyway.
 
Just spitballing, but I think that from here onwards, each successive British order for F-35s will maintain the split between 12 F-35As and 15 F-35Bs, which would leave us with 40-50 F-35As and 90-100 F-35Bs.

Is that a feasible idea? The 'at least' qualifier in the government statement indicates at least some consideration for further F-35A purchases.
 
Reuben James said:
Just spitballing, but I think that from here onwards, each successive British order for F-35s will maintain the split between 12 F-35As and 15 F-35Bs, which would leave us with 40-50 F-35As and 90-100 F-35Bs.

Is that a feasible idea? The 'at least' qualifier in the government statement indicates at least some consideration for further F-35A purchases.
Click to expand...

Prediction. We will never buy than 70 (existing 48 plus 22) and only then because we are already contracted to buy them. They are extremely expensive and require massive maintenance effort. The future is Tempest or similar.
 
63gehark_ said:
Prediction. We will never buy than 70 (existing 48 plus 22) and only then because we are already contracted to buy them. They are extremely expensive and require massive maintenance effort. The future is Tempest or similar.
Click to expand...
Expecting Tempest to be cheaper than the F-35, or Typhoon, to acquire or operate per hour is a road leading to disappointment.
 
FighterJock said:
Is that so that we can keep the Storm Shadows in operation until the new missiles are ready for service?
Click to expand...
Seems likely. It is also probably being done to replace the oldest ones left so that they can be sent to Ukraine. It's likely that decommissioning and scrapping them would cost about as much as building new ones.
 
Flyaway said:
Out of interest what would people actually consider an effective minimum number for the role to be done properly not in this half arsed way.
Click to expand...
Really depends on what their role is, how they fit into the bigger NATO nuclear mission.

Okay, they're nuclear sharing via NATO/US, so it's full on SIOP nuclear war missions. I'd guess pairs of planes, each with a nuke and an ARM internal. Gives us nuke, backup nuke and a pair of ARMs like SiAW to use on the way, plus the usual 2x AAMs.

So engaging a max of 6 targets in that case, possibly only 2-3 if the fighters have to blast a path to their primary target.


Side note: It'd be really good for NATO to build an AMRAAM form factor ARM, or make a new seeker that allows for an ARM firing mode of the AAM.​




zen said:
These 12 jets be not sustainable from the F-35B fleet.
Click to expand...
Say what now?

85% commonality means that the major difference between the -A and the -B is the engine and lift system! That means a few extra door actuators and the engine+LiftFan. So you might end up with ~3 extra engines for the -As (depends on how reliable the -As are). Given that these are for a nuclear role, I'd go so far as to double the number of extra engines above whatever the "standard" is for -Bs.

Aside from the engine difference, the only difference I am aware of between the -A and the -B is the nuclear PAL system.
 
Lot's of differences, like bulkhead thicknesses. Hence why the internal weapons bays be apparently smaller.
Not just different hatches, but strengthening around hatches and the changed internal arrangements.

All of which affects commonality of parts.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom