Of course the other option on 'tactical' weapons is resurrecting the Army's tactical nuclear missile forces.
A nuclear ATACMS or PrSM or indeed a new domestic or licensed revised French Hades, will deliver at far lower cost than F-35A with B61.

In fact such Army rocketry is much easier to achieve, much more affordable and while slower to deploy (by A400 or C17) , it's positioning is far more potent.
 
... and no way would the US clear their nukes on non-US aircraft so by default the RAF would either have to acquire its own F-35As or borrow some from the USAF.
I believe it's more a case of money and time than policy. Both Nimrod and Tornado were integrated with US nuclear weapons, let alone Canberra and V-Force of an earlier era.

If the UK does take the F-35A shortcut I just hope they specify refuelling probe rather than receptacle. The C model would seem a better fit but presumably won't be tested with the B61.
 
If the UK does take the F-35A shortcut I just hope they specify refuelling probe rather than receptacle. The C model would seem a better fit but presumably won't be tested with the B61.
The UK would have to pay for nuclear integration on the -C model, while it comes standard with the -A. The USN has not wanted nuclear-capable aircraft on carriers in a long time.

Much cheaper to ask for an -A model with probe refueling.
 

Looks like the proposed F-35A procurement is still very nebulous.
I think that’s more a case of not spooking people. Also not being too sure with the US. I wish there was a way of doing this without going via the US. See what’s currently happening with the AUKUS deal for what I mean.
 
So let me get this straight...

People think the UK is going to jump the queue on F-35A and B61 to get aircraft delivered tactical free fall nuclear weapons back into service. Ahead of any other option?

So ahead of just integration of the same weapon on Typhoon already in UK service and with which Italy and Germany could share the costs and the trials schedule.

Ahead of clearing B61 for F-35B, which is already in UK service and again other partners could potentially share the burden.

Ahead of getting ASMP on Typhoon?

Ahead of remanufacturing WE.177?

Ahead of any other option.

Which does assume F-35A production is able to increase, or some other customer in the queue for their aircraft, gets pushed back in the queue.....

Call me crazy, but this sounds more like wishful thinking than sound pragmatism.
 
The problem with Typhoon is that it was built without the necessary wiring that would have enabled it to operate the ASMP zen unfortunately, otherwise that would have been a good choice for the RAF.
 
Wiring or connectors?

Frankly I don't buy it.
 
Both I would have thought zen. I would have liked the Typhoon to have got the ASMP-A for the nuclear strike role especially to replace the WE-177 nuclear bombs that were retired in 1998, the ASMP-A would have made for a good replacement initially for the Tornado and then the Typhoon.
 
Anyone knows what munition types are we talking about here?
I hope they also include some SRMs for missile-type munitions.

In the style of the usual UK Government announcements of things that have already been announced I would bet my house on the following '6 new factories' being ones we already know about......

  1. Additional production line at BAE Washington (already announced and in build)
  2. Expansion and new facilities at BAE Glascoed (already announced and in build))
  3. New BAE Artillery & Barrel facility in Sheffield (already announced and in build)
  4. New Rheinmetall barrel facility in Telford (already announced)
  5. MBDA Expansion in Bolton (already announced)
  6. Roxel new production line for rocket motors (already announced)
That I think will be the 'new factories'..

I very much doubt that there will be anything else, apart from private drone factories and the nuclear enterprise. No-one seems to be talking about a new propellant/explosives factory.
 
In the style of the usual UK Government announcements of things that have already been announced I would bet my house on the following '6 new factories' being ones we already know about......

  1. Additional production line at BAE Washington (already announced and in build)
  2. Expansion and new facilities at BAE Glascoed (already announced and in build))
  3. New BAE Artillery & Barrel facility in Sheffield (already announced and in build)
  4. New Rheinmetall barrel facility in Telford (already announced)
  5. MBDA Expansion in Bolton (already announced)
  6. Roxel new production line for rocket motors (already announced)
That I think will be the 'new factories'..

I very much doubt that there will be anything else, apart from private drone factories and the nuclear enterprise. No-one seems to be talking about a new propellant/explosives factory.
Is the #6 SRM factory not supposed to involve production of propellants?
 
Big picture time.

UK Government has run.
“feasibility of the Integrated Battle Command System (IBCS) and Forward Area Air Defence (FAAD) C2 systems and their suitability as potential short and medium-range air defence (SHORAD/MRAD) C2 solutions.” Work was expected to start in October and last for six months, indicating delivery in March 2025.
Northrup IBCS
Lockheed Martin UK Sky Keeper, which builds upon the company’s Land Environment Air Picture Provision (LEAPP)

The latter includes the ability to manage striking back at direction of threats and sources of attack.

Shades of FADS requirements.

Both options will extend management to include naval and allied capabilities.

Remember UK is committing to some 7,000 strike missiles in collaboration with Germany.
 
So let me get this straight...

People think the UK is going to jump the queue on F-35A and B61 to get aircraft delivered tactical free fall nuclear weapons back into service. Ahead of any other option?

So ahead of just integration of the same weapon on Typhoon already in UK service and with which Italy and Germany could share the costs and the trials schedule.

Ahead of clearing B61 for F-35B, which is already in UK service and again other partners could potentially share the burden.

Ahead of getting ASMP on Typhoon?

Ahead of remanufacturing WE.177?

Ahead of any other option.

Which does assume F-35A production is able to increase, or some other customer in the queue for their aircraft, gets pushed back in the queue.....

Call me crazy, but this sounds more like wishful thinking than sound pragmatism.
I think the whole F-35A and B61 thing has been overblown, analysts connecting the dots in the Review that might not actually be a true dotted line and I suspect lobbying from the pro-F-35A crowd to boost the positive reasons to buy it. The Times story before the Review came out smacks more of lobbying to me than a reflection of what was actually intended in the Review.

Even if the MOD ordered the F-35s tomorrow, delivery would be unlikely before 2030. According to the optimistic plans, GCAP arrives in 2035, the RAF had already boasted it will carry twice the weapons load of F-35 and much further (in reality FOC is likely to be nearer 2040). So that puts Tempest squarely in the Tornado replacement category as a long-range striker. But being a non-US design with Italian and Japanese input, it's highly unlikely that the US would integrate B61 or any other tactical nuclear weapon on it. So that leaves the RAF with a small force of F-35As for a very niche role of nuclear strike that will probably never be called upon and only providing a short-term solution for a lot of capital outlay.

If the UK Gov/MOD really is serious about joining the NATO tac nuke club, the only realistic possibilities are to integrate them with F-35B (which I assume is not impossible?) or buying/loaning/begging F-35A. But even so, tossing nukes like its 1962 is probably not really a smart move given modern air defences and I doubt RAF pilots would be keen on that kind of mission profile.
 
Nuclear warheads for the Storm Shadow cruise missiles might be a better way to go. It may be most effective to buy new dedicated nuclear armed examples. Developing & procuring nuclear armed MdCN missiles for the Royal Navy may also be a good investment.
 
So let me get this straight...

People think the UK is going to jump the queue on F-35A and B61 to get aircraft delivered tactical free fall nuclear weapons back into service. Ahead of any other option?

So ahead of just integration of the same weapon on Typhoon already in UK service and with which Italy and Germany could share the costs and the trials schedule.
Would need US PAL systems installed, then all the weapons clearance flights done.



Ahead of clearing B61 for F-35B, which is already in UK service and again other partners could potentially share the burden.
Not sure B61s physically fit into F-35B, not to mention that F-35Bs do not have the PAL systems installed.


Ahead of getting ASMP on Typhoon?
would need French PAL systems installed, then clearance flights done.


Ahead of remanufacturing WE.177?
Can the UK nuclear industry actually produce weapons within a few years?


Ahead of any other option.

Which does assume F-35A production is able to increase, or some other customer in the queue for their aircraft, gets pushed back in the queue.....

Call me crazy, but this sounds more like wishful thinking than sound pragmatism.
I would hope that the UK did run the numbers for how long it'd take and how much it'd cost to do all the options.
 
So let me get this straight...

People think the UK is going to jump the queue on F-35A and B61 to get aircraft delivered tactical free fall nuclear weapons back into service. Ahead of any other option?

So ahead of just integration of the same weapon on Typhoon already in UK service and with which Italy and Germany could share the costs and the trials schedule.
Germany ordered F-35As with delivery starting in 2026 because B61 is already integrated.
Italy already has F-35As with more on the way.

What makes you think Germany and Italy would want to share B61 integration costs on Typhoon at this stage, when they already have an aircraft where the US paid for B61 integration? That ship sailed when Germany threw in the towel and ordered F-35A.
 
Germany ordered F-35As with delivery starting in 2026 because B61 is already integrated.
Italy already has F-35As with more on the way.
And when did they order them.....

And yes.
The window on this nonsense has already closed. Making F-35A with B61 expensive and unlikely to arrive in short order.
Can the UK nuclear industry actually produce weapons within a few years?
Bingo!
Killer question.

I'd hope they have a standing reassessment ever few years anyway and refreshed after that Trump-Zelenski meeting....
But competence is something very lacking in UK Government, despite the veritable army of civil servants running everything.

We supposedly be in the process of ramping up for "Astrea" warhead production and various facilities ought to be receiving funding now. So as with a lot of UK nuclear, now would be the time to have explored increasing the variety of warheads and systems of delivery.
 
Last edited:
Can the UK nuclear industry actually produce weapons within a few years?
Not unless Aldermaston has been keeping something up its sleeve.

Even if it had, that wouldn't be new-build WE.177s - that's a 60-year-old weapon. It didn't have any of the safety features that a modern nuclear weapon would be expected to have, and probably relied on long-lost parts and techniques.
 
Germany ordered F-35As with delivery starting in 2026 because B61 is already integrated.
Italy already has F-35As with more on the way.

What makes you think Germany and Italy would want to share B61 integration costs on Typhoon at this stage, when they already have an aircraft where the US paid for B61 integration? That ship sailed when Germany threw in the towel and ordered F-35A.

The whole F-35A / B61/12 is utter nonsense, and those who were pushing it following a mis-reading/mis-understanding of the SDR have backpedaled rapidly.

There simply is not the money. We're getting Tranche 2 of 27 x F-35B and that is it. Combat Air Budget is totally spent on that and Typhoon MLU, F-35B Block IV/propulsion etc upgrades, CCA, Protector and, the big one, GCAP....

People see the increase in spending and forget about the bow wave of unfunded kit in the equipment plan that MoD already had...the uplift will go on that....and some other modest capabilities.

But...to be fair....the fact that the US might be cutting its annual purchase of F-35A might make delivery slots easier to come by...no-one tell the RAF eejits who keep pushing it though (really though MoD needs to find who they are and get rid...).

There is zero chance of B-61 integration on Typhoon. The US wanted access to Typhoon source code for the integration, the Europeans rightly said no....so it died permanently right then. And you are correct in saying that Germany and Italy would have less than zero interest in funding integration for the UK....

Not sure B61s physically fit into F-35B, not to mention that F-35Bs do not have the PAL systems installed.

They could, just. With c40cm to spare. But IIRC there would need to be some adaptations in the bay...plus the whole integration and testing campaign which would not be cheap.....USMC, Italy, Japan etc would have no interest in it whatsoever...so no sharing costs...to be fair probably piggy back off some of the F-35A work though...

If the UK Gov/MOD really is serious about joining the NATO tac nuke club, the only realistic possibilities are to integrate them with F-35B (which I assume is not impossible?) or buying/loaning/begging F-35A. But even so, tossing nukes like its 1962 is probably not really a smart move given modern air defences and I doubt RAF pilots would be keen on that kind of mission profile.

Indeed. Never understood why B-61/12 was developed....does anyone really want to open those bay doors and drop a gravity bomb over a well defended target even in an F-35....mind you that's what we'll be asking F-35B pilots to do for the next 8 years regardless of nucs....

Nuclear warheads for the Storm Shadow cruise missiles might be a better way to go. It may be most effective to buy new dedicated nuclear armed examples. Developing & procuring nuclear armed MdCN missiles for the Royal Navy may also be a good investment.

That was the direction of travel before WE.177 and the tac nucs were removed. If we were genuinely interested in tac nucs for the future it would make more sense to develop a weapon in an FC/ASW variant (have to be quite a mod though if we wanted to retain the ability to still export FC/ASW).

To be honest if tac nucs were really a thing we want to do....it would make more sense, both industrially and militarily, in the short term to buy some Typhoon EK to support the Italian, German, Dutch, Belgian and US F-35's in a war to actually help them survive long enough to drop their B-61/12's...and then take a long slow development path to our own capability and integrate with GCAP....
 
BAE aren't mucking about....

The Sheffield M777 facility is open....just for M777 at the 'mo. But believe it will also do L118/119 and barrels for other systems including 40CT and 5"" naval amongst others...

 
They could, just. With c40cm to spare. But IIRC there would need to be some adaptations in the bay...plus the whole integration and testing campaign which would not be cheap.....USMC, Italy, Japan etc would have no interest in it whatsoever...so no sharing costs...to be fair probably piggy back off some of the F-35A work though...
I was honestly thinking diameter as the limiting factor. Aren't -Bs still limited to only carrying 1000lb bombs? IIRC the B61 is fatter than the 1000lb bomb casing.



Indeed. Never understood why B-61/12 was developed....does anyone really want to open those bay doors and drop a gravity bomb over a well defended target even in an F-35....mind you that's what we'll be asking F-35B pilots to do for the next 8 years regardless of nucs....
It wasn't developed for F-35. It was developed for B-2 and B-21, and since B61 is the only nuke bomb in USAF service it was applied to everything.
 
What brough the USSR to the negotiating table was Pershing and Cruise.
Not free fall bombs.
 
There is zero chance of B-61 integration on Typhoon. The US wanted access to Typhoon source code for the integration, the Europeans rightly said no....so it died permanently right then.

It wouldn't be the radar processing, flight control, DASS or EW source code so... why not? The weapons mgmt* source and, perhaps, the nav-attack source aren't going to give the US military-industrial complex any particular insights that win them exports.

* Seems to be called Armaments Control System Distribution Unit on the Eurofighter, developed by Black Sun Technologies in the UK. So it's definitely a discrete set of software.
 
If we really want the F-35A and B-61-12 or B-61-13 (or whatever is in service at that time) it is time we bought some or shut up about it.
 
If we really want the F-35A and B-61-12 or B-61-13 (or whatever is in service at that time) it is time we bought some or shut up about it.
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.
 
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.
There's a difference between the UK having pure release authority like on the Tridents, and NATO Dual Key nukes.
 
Times article on the new Sheffield site. Subscriber link for those with a subscription.

 
There was widespread suspicion that Starmer and co. would try something like this; however hardly anyone thought that they would be so blatant about it.

In other news:
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.
 
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.

Essentially yes. Anyone actually expecting 5% of GDP flowing into the MoD's coffer's needs to be a bit more realistic....
 
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.
I'd be thrilled if the US was spending that much on critical infrastructure.
 
A major problem is, very little of it is actually anything that can be even loosely considered to be critical infrastructure, HS2 spending is included for example.
 
Last edited:
A major problem is, very little of it is actually anything that can be even loosely considered to be critical infrastructure, HS2 spending is included for example.
Hard to argue that HS2 or nationwide broadband aren't critical infrastructure. Both are essential for the UK's economy to be fit for the 21st century.

Whether they're critical defence infrastructure is another matter altogether.
 
Yall are seriously arguing that a technology that is designed to provide massively-redundant, self-rerouting communications channels in the event of a nuclear attack is not critical defense infrastructure?

*raises eyebrow*
The core of the network, certainly. To every village, hamlet, and farmhouse? Possibly not.

The intent of the '1.5% on infrastructure', of course, is to make sure those benefits exist., and haven't been salami-sliced out by some MBA trying to improve efficiency and hit profit targets.
 
The core of the network, certainly. To every village, hamlet, and farmhouse? Possibly not.
The more nodes on the network, the greater the redundancy in terms of possible routes available.



The intent of the '1.5% on infrastructure', of course, is to make sure those benefits exist., and haven't been salami-sliced out by some MBA trying to improve efficiency and hit profit targets.
Yeah, MBAs are a danger to operational success.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom