UK to buy nuclear-capable F-35As that can't be refueled from RAF tankers The UK government is to buy 12 F-35A fighters capable of carrying nuclear weapons as part of the NATO deterrent, but there's a snag: the new jets are incompatible with the RAF's refueling tanker aircraft. Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced the move at a NATO summit today, which will see the government buy "at least a dozen …
The first of which is will the USA continue honoring its obligations towards its allies, or will Trumpism win the day and it decides to "stop paying for other countries" ?
Frankly, at this point in time I think it is dangerous to rely on anything the White House can influence.
The spurious assumption about the Epstein tapes is that the person in them has any sense of shame or guilt
As we've repeatedly seen with right wingers, pedophiles and rapists are OK as long as
they're white and have the same politics (eg: The conviction records of several Yaxley-Lennon associates hasn't made a blind bit of difference as far as his National Front mob are concerned)
What matters more are the financial records showing his mouney laundering history. Dirty money matters vastly more than sex crimes
The spurious assumption about the Epstein tapes is that the person in them has any sense of shame or guilt.
Politics is rife with spurious assumptions. I'm not sure who you're talking about though? The Bidens again? One of those did make sex tapes, possibly involving underage women. But you can't be thinking of Trump. After all there were 4yrs where the Demorats were trying ever dirty trick possible to impeach him. Then his 4yrs in the wilderness where the Demorats tried every dirty trick possible to bankrupt and jail him. So if anything in the Epstein tapes actually existed, given the hostility between the DoJ, FBI and Trump, they would have released it, or leaked it to CNN, MSNBC, NYT, WaPo etc etc?
Alternatively Trump figured Epstein was a perv and banned him from Mar a Lago..
For those who don't know: Yaxley-Lennon is more commonly known as Tommy Robinson. He's a former football hooligan who started the English Defence league (not National Front) which included British people of various colours (when confronted on his 'racist' views, he pointed out he had more non-white friends in his friends list than the reporter confronting him. He wasn't a white supremacist as some claim, but that doesn't mean he wasn't a bigot, or make his actions any less egregious). This 'league' came about due to a belief that a certain group of people were grooming kids. He actually does admit that his approach was based on him being a thug: He was confrontational and stirred up trouble. He left the EDL some years later, and that group went further to the extremes, and he went more towards political activism, still focusing on that one part of the community and stirring up trouble.
The problem is that he was correct about the grooming taking place. That doesn't excuse his actions, although the police and council, and even the government, were ignoring what happened (some councillors reportedly dismissing the children as 'white trash').
Basically, he's a trouble maker who just happened to be correct about the grooming gangs.
I'd also point out that what you say of 'right wingers' et al is true of most groups/associations/ideologies. People are more inclined to ignore, or excuse, actions taken by those they see themselves as aligned to while being quick to call out the actions of those they're not. It's something to be mindful of, really: Can take time to get used to the idea that someone you like isn't always a good person.
The design of NATO and the USA’s input into it and financial cost was more driven by US Oversea’s Policy and their desire to dominate it with their Military Industrial Complex.
The £1bn plus cost of this stop-gap - with desperately short extended range - would be better spent on the BBC and projection of soft-power around the world. If you must have some hardware - £1bn on some drones and the change on some (anonymous) Long-wheel-base Sprinter white- vans as deployment vehicles (sorry national interest Vauxhall/Peugeot vans would stand out a mile in the Middle East).
Q. Why can’t the F35A be fitted with the F35B refuelling option that already exists ?
Q. Does the F35B not have a drop-tanks option to increase the range?
Q. Why can’t the WE 177 nukes be brought out of retirement - as they will ‘never be used’?
Q. Why can’t the F35B be certified to carry the American B61 tactical nuclear bomb?
The problem with the BBC (and others) is that power is also used on us. I don't want to support that.
Tough. You don't really have any choice. Well, unless you cancel your licence and give up watching live TV. Then you'll get a threatogram every Friday telling you they've 'opened and investigation' and similar garbage. But the TV Licence is up for review, and as usual, the Bbc is trying to avoid becoming a subscription service and instead forcing everyone to pay via a Bbc tax on broadband, or loading it onto Council Tax.
But it's also happily exerting soft power-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwyk19442r3o
The (Bbc) is launching a Polish-language news service to reach new audiences with content they can trust... This is part of a BBC strategy to reach more audiences and "advance the case for democratic values", Munro added.
So the Bbc once again demonstrating that their most famous ex-employee's Minitrue is alive and well, and still sticking to their 1984 manual. Also somewhat ironic that 'content they can trust' includes things like reporting from the NATO conference with NATO logos everywhere, but the Bbc still can't get NATO's name correct.
"Well, unless you cancel your licence and give up watching live TV" (NB also iPlayer)
Did that several years ago. Return the threats addressed to "the Legal Occupier" as "Not known at this address". At the rate they're going the postage costs will bankrupt the Licence people.
Don't understand people who get repeated letters. Offspring at university fills in the online form once per year (bit of a trick to find the correct boxes to tick I suppose) and doesn't seem to be bothered again. iPlayer (and receiving broadcast TV) is perfectly legal on equipment running on its "own internal batteries", covered by the home licence. So long as the laptop or phone battery is charged before the rugby match, job done. For longer stints can watch in relay; battery on one device while the other recharges :-)
I also have a friend who went licence-free many years ago and didn't complain (to me, at any rate) about threatening letters. I think there were two or three in the first year until he found the correct boxes to tick, then maybe the non-threatening "your TV licence is due for renewal" once a year?
Personally, and especially when you look at the alternative, I think the licence fee is phenominal value for money. It's not just TV (not forgetting that some licence fee money also goes towards S4C and World Service TV and radio), it's also all the BBC radio stations, all its online content, things like "Introducing" for new music and in particular its schemes for supporting "grassroots" journalism such as the Local Democracy Reporting Service. Again, personally, I couldn't care less that they don't show (for example) premiership football live, though my family is constantly worried the Six Nations might have to go at some point.
If the BBC was forced to go subscription (it can't be forced to go purely ad-funded because that would fragment the market further and do damage to ITV*, Channel 4 and Channel 5 as well as the low-value "repeats" channels) most of those functions would go. The BBC would concentrate on its flagship national channels and repeats. Most local TV and radio programming would cease (I know it's been cut a lot in recent years) and the LDRS would also stop.
M.
*ITV is already a pale shadow of its former self. Compare its programming today with what was possible in the 1960s and 1970s, even in the regions. Look in particular at the complete lack of children's programming and the unimaginative clone after clone after clone of the same blasted quiz / "reality" / crime format! (not that the BBC is entirely immune to the latter, of course; my university-attending offspring bemoans the fact that Death in Paradise, Death in Devon, Death (in the) Valley are basically all the same programme and that Ludwig is essentially a copy of Professor T (ITV) which was itself a remake of Professor T (Belgium), but at least the BBC also has Only Connect, University Challenge and on radio, RBQ, ISIHAC, Dead Ringers...)
If the BBC was forced to go subscription (it can't be forced to go purely ad-funded because that would fragment the market further and do damage to ITV*, Channel 4 and Channel 5 as well as the low-value "repeats" channels) most of those functions would go. The BBC would concentrate on its flagship national channels and repeats. Most local TV and radio programming would cease (I know it's been cut a lot in recent years) and the LDRS would also stop.
You say this like it's a bad thing. The Bbc regularly spends licence payer's money making content like reports saying everyone loves it and it's worth more than £150 a year, or whatever it charges for its enforced subscription right now. So it would be just fine on a voluntary subscription model. People also tend to forget that Channel 4 is also government owned, so they could be merged with the Bbc. People also forget that Ofcom also regulates UK broadcasting and can mandate things like amount of news, ad breaks and other stuff. Except the Bbc becuase it's special and is mostly self-regulated. So the government could still require Bbc 4 to provide FTA channels.
The Bbc could still concentrate on its fagship channels and churn out Eastenders, Casuality and apparently one of their most expensive flagship programs, Dr Who.. Which nobody watched because it was sooo bad. Which was also one of the problems with the Bbc and the assumption that it's public service, rather than a public disservice. So Dr Woo ended up being produced by a couple of ex-Bbc staff and the Sony-owned 'Bad Wolf' which is the usual way the Bbc slides licence fee money into luvvies pockets. Or just the Bbc's commercial arm, Bbc Worldwide. Which is an entity that also demonstrates that the Bbc group is kinda useless, because if it was any good, Worldwide would be making money and the licence fee wouldn't have to be increased every year. The Bbc is extremely coy about how their internal commercial arrangements work, so just how much money is being siphoned from licence payers to current/former staff with joint productions like Dr Who. It was apparently very expensive, but based on reviews and clips, not obvious where the money went. It certainly didn't seem to be being spent on decent writers or directors.
>” Which is an entity that also demonstrates that the Bbc group is kinda useless, because if it was any good, Worldwide would be making money and the licence fee wouldn't have to be increased every year.”
By that logic Amazon et al are also kinda useless, because if they were so good they wouldn’t be forcing mid-film adverts on subscribers…
With Enshitifcation, it won’t be long before cinemas start running ad breaks during the screening of the main feature.
By that logic Amazon et al are also kinda useless, because if they were so good they wouldn’t be forcing mid-film adverts on subscribers…
Yep, so I did what most sensible people would do and cancelled my subscription. But again Ofcom regulates the amount of advertising.. Just too bad it can't do the same with stuff like Amazon, Netlfix, YT etc.
You say this like it's a bad thing
Of course it (that is, severely contracting radio services, closing down the "smaller" channels, ending the LDRS) it's a bad thing! The fact is that at the moment, the BBC is pretty much the only reason local content survives. Local newspapers? Re-hashed press-releases, reader-contributed stories and a single "editor/reporter" in some cases. LDRS money pays for proper (if limited) journalism.
Local radio? Don't make me laugh. Other than a very few community-run radio stations, and speaking as someone who used to work in ILR, there's no such thing these days. Pretty much all programming is syndicated and local content consists of a separate advert stream and, if you are lucky, some newsreader reading out some local-relevant headlines, quite likely not from a local studio but from HQ somewhere else. BBC local radio is nothing compared to even just 20 years ago, but it's better than that, and the "local national" stations such as Radio Wales, Radio Cymru, Radio Scotland, Radio nan Gàidheal, Radio Ulster are usually well-loved.
Local TV? There is next to nothing on ITV now. Far from the days of Anglia, LWT, Granada, HTV and the ilk where there was more locally-sourced programming than network-sourced, you are lucky if (outside of news bulletins) it averages out to as much as 30 minutes a day. In 1984, around the time Channel 4 and S4C launched, HTV Wales opened a large studio complex at Culverhouse Cross in Cardiff. Within a very few years, and despite all the independent producers that S4C encouraged, many of whom rented studios at the complex, HTV's local HQ moved to a couple of floors in an office block in Cardiff Bay. The studios were demolished just 20 years after they opened.
This is what going "commercial" does, even when your licence has a "public service" remit. The BBC is not commercial; the licence fee could be considered a "tax" (many people like that comparison because it makes the BBC look like an arm of government, which I really don't think it is). When everyone (let's not get into that discussion) pays the same taxes, everyone benefits. It might be a bit "socialist" but there's no argument that just because I haven't had children, or my children have left school, my taxes should not go to pay for education services.
The BBC could probably survive as a subscription service, but in order to maintain the level of services the fees would have to be significantly higher than the current licence fee. Or, as I said, keep the licence fee at a similar level and shut down anything "loss making".
It's an attitude like that that has removed "loss making" bus services because the privatised companies don't want to cross-subsidise them from profitable routes, even if they are vital lifelines for some people. Note how this didn't happen in London, of course, while other areas (Manchester for example) are bringing the planning and commissioning of bus services back into public hands.
</rant>
M.
not obvious where the money went
For the last series of Who, the money mostly seems to have gone on bigger, more lavish sets, larger supporting casts and vast amounts of better CGI. Frankly if it's money from Disney, I don't care if it's being spent "wisely". Disney is a prime mover of the enshittification movement.
On the other hand, despite the raw numbers not being brilliant, all except one episode of the latest series was in the top 5 programmes on overnight viewing figures. All this tells you is that there's nothing much on telly on Saturday evenings and people have stopped watching. With four big fans in my close family, two of them thought this series an improvement on the last, particularly the first half. The others haven't really offered an opinion, but certainly didn't say they thought it was getting worse!
M.
Because the probe part sticks out which isn't very stealthy and it's already plumbed with female parts for the boom.
Because drop tanks also aren't very stealthy.
I imagine they were disassembled and their fissile materials repurposed.
I don't know but I imagine because the lift fan takes up room in the bomb bay and the STOL requirement reduces the payload capacity.
I'm sure the information is out there if you want to google.
Because the probe part sticks out which isn't very stealthy and it's already plumbed with female parts for the boom.
Well, the probe could probably be made movable so it only sticks out when required for coupling, that works ok in other situations...
As for the plumbing, isn't gender reassignment all the rage these days?
With the exercise of soft power, I’m sure “RAF only” could be adopted across all the new non-US manufactured aircraft the world (outside of the USA) are looking to buy in the coming years…
The joy of RAF refuelling (and GB ownership of Ascension Island) means you can fly bombers from RAF Scampton to Port Stanley and back, without either the involvement of the US military or the permission of the Whitehouse - something we Brit’s know from experience is highly likely to be refused, even given the “special relationship” Maggie and Ronnie…
Am I right to remember that while a boom-equipped tanker can deliver fuel faster (because of the rigid pipe), it can only deliver to one aircraft at once, while a drogue-equipped tanker usually has two?
That a drogue system is much easier and cheaper to repair in the event of being snapped off, and the bits are (slightly) less dangerous flying about?
That a drogue system requires skill from the to-be-filled aircraft for docking, whereas the probe is "flown" by an operator in the tanker?*
That drogue systems have been used to refuel helicopters, which isn't possible with a probe?
M.
*This ties in with the possibly apocryphal story of the first Harriers. I think I first heard this from a lecturer at university who was in a former life a Sqn Ldr in the RAF.
The Harrier was known to be a difficult aircraft to fly, particularly in the transition from vertical to horizontal flight and back the other way. A lot of aircraft (and a few pilots) were lost during its development, however once it was ready for RAF use, many of these problems had been ironed out and training of the hand-picked pilots ensured that it had an extremely good track record in service.
Until it was sold to the US.
Apparently, the RAF pilots made flying it look so easy that the US Air Force assumed it was flyable by almost any jet-trained pilot. Their accident rate only improved once updated "computer aided" controls were fitted. I always suspected something similar with the probe-refuelling system. Locking on to a drogue takes quite some skill on the part of the pilot, whereas a probe just requires flying straight and level, something which might actually be done on autopilot, leaving the skill to a highly-trained probe operator in the tanker.
Yes, I believe the boom was developed for US Strategic Air Command when they wanted to refuel B-52's which have lots of engines and burn huge quantities of fuel. The probe design was easier to retrofit and is fine for smaller aircraft like fighters. The USAF mandate it for all their aircraft even so they don't have to justify having tankers that can be used by only a fraction of their fleet.
> I imagine they were disassembled and their fissile materials repurposed.
Judging by Hansard (https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/1998-06-01/debates/fba5be4f-c56b-4e1e-bca0-39eab8dc3b73/We177Bombs) the WE.177 will have been dismantled and the cores stored at AWE. I doubt many of them have been repurposed yet because it's only recently we've embarked on a warhead replacement program. You don't mess with plutonium unless you absolutely have to.
1. It could be, but it's not really worth the cost for the sake of 12 jets. Much better to make the tanker fleet compatible, which would have other benefits. The problem is that that RAF doesn't own its tankers - Cameron-era PFI nonsense - so we are where we are.
2. They have the plumbing for drop tanks, but they don't exist yet. Also the F35B can't carry the B61.
3. They don't exist - that's what 'retirement' means.
4. The F35B can't physically carry the B61 internally, hasn't got the range and hasn't been certified since they're primarily built for the US Marines who don't have a nuclear mission.
Add to those answers that the RAF *really* wanted the A, not the B, and the nuclear option is how the RAF sold the idea to the government - likely a bit of clever politicking. The real reason the RAF wants them is longer range, lower running costs and better manoeuvrability. You can bet that the RAF will pretty soon be looking for a pretext to order more. Don't get caught up with the nuclear thing - as my friends on X say "that's what they want you to believe" ('they' being the RAF). By the way, these are not additional aircraft - 12 F35Bs were cancelled to make way for them.
Q. Why can’t the F35A be fitted with the F35B refuelling option that already exists ?
A. Because the US uses the same refuelling tech Marines/NAVY uses, and F-35B is a Marines plane. USAF, on the other hand, is special, and requires booms. Why? Inter-service rivalry which we inherit by using US weapons.
"projection of soft-power around the world."
90% of that soft power disappeared with EU membership and a bunch of chickens which were held at bay are heading for the roosts now there's no risk of economic retaliation in terms of EU trade being blocked
The AU/NZ trade deals with Europe have highlighted how quotas and tariffs were primarily driven by one member trying to maintain a near-captive market and the former colonies subservient
Lockheed won't even think about having to change the F35A production line for just 12 aircraft, plus I'd expect the "plumbing" to be different as the probe and drogue fitted to F35B has to navigate around the forward lift fan. Bear in mind the USN also operates probe and drogue refilling the same as the UK, hence no changes needed.
Fit drop tanks and you increase the radar signature and drag. They don't yet do stealth drop tanks.
I'd suspect all the fissile material from the WE.177s will have beed reused already.
The bomb bay on the F35B is smaller than the F35A to accommodate the forward VTOL lift systems, as in a big hole to vent the thrust off the forward fan.
To deal with your questions:
1: It can be fitted with UK refuelling "drogue and probe" system, but at horrendous cost. If UK had specified F35A in the first place we would already have it, but it's a very expensive retrofit.
2: It can be fitted with drop tanks but the drop tanks have a huge radar signature and also increase drag, thus reducing performance. Sort of spoils the whole stealth thing which is the USP of the F35.
3: Most of the tooling is long gone. The WE177 was last in service in 1998. Nukes are complex precision toys.
4. The F35B has smaller weapons bays than the A model. This is to enable the bloody great fan in the middle of the aircraft to work. Can't be changed.
The UK purchase of the F35B was a mistake in the first place and was to allow the use of a ski ramp takeoff on the carriers a la Harrier. This saves the cost of fitting a catapult and arrestor wire system, but uses an aircraft the is compromised in other respects (range being one of them). Personal opinion, UK should have fitted conventional CATOBAR (Catapult Assisted Take Off But Arrested Recovery) to the carriers and gone for the F35C model which is the same as the A model but with catapult, arrestor hook fixings, larger wings and increased fuel capacity.
The fueling system is built into the airframe.
Drop tanks are an option, but they negate all stealthy aspects of the aircraft
No clue on the WE 177, but one assumes (with all associated gaffs) they were retired for a reason.
The B-model has a smaller bomb-bay because of the huge lift fan in the fuselage. The B-61 is physically too big to fit in the B-model
"such as Bernie and AOC, the Democrats are incompetent"
FIFY.
Bernie is a life long grifter who has never worked a real day in his life and thinks the world owes him a living and several large houses. AOC is just a puppet picked by as she has a pretty face. She grew up in a very well to do part of NY yet claims she grew up in the Bronx.
"At low level (the only place knickers worked) dropping a nuke would be suicidal; the aim was to be many miles away when it went off."
I think RAF missions to Nuke the USSR were always pretty much assumed to be suicide missions anyway, and there may not have been much reason to come back. And with a 1200 mile range, the F-35A can barely make it to Russia so if there are no "allies" able to offer a refuelling option on the way there and on the way back, that's also going to be a one way mission too.
It's a slightly perplexing purchase.
The RAF has the Typhoon plus F35B - the F35B was specifically purchased for RAF and RN because of its VSTOL capability, to replace the Harrier. Moreover, it wasn't the case that the UK went looking for a Harrier replacement and the F35B was the only option: the F35B was specifically designed as a Harrier replacement with RAF and RN (and USMC) in mind, hence the UK being the only Tier I partner in the F35 programme (I have seen the claim that it was only the combined requirements of the USMC and the UK that resulted in the -B variant being developed, and that without the UK interest, the USMC would have been told to make do with the naval -C variant).
From an arm-chair general / top Trumps perspective (i.e. on publicly available data), Typhoon seems to be better than the F35 in many respects, though obviously is not a stealth design. However, there have been persistent claims over the years that the RAF wanted some F35A, and it's quite possible that the capabilities of the F35 are better than have been publicly released.
The stated intent of using the -A as a sort of advanced trainer make some sense - I'm not convinced by the "it can fly for longer on a single tank of fuel" argument, but if I recall, the US operating costs show the F35A a fair bit cheaper to operate per hour than the -B, and over the service life of the airframes, that might in itself justify the purchase.
However, it's not just the different forms of air-to-air refuelling that might restrict the RAF's usage of the -A.
Currently the RAF use ASRAAM and Meteor as air to air weapons, plus Brimstone soon to be replaced by SPEAR 3 for air to ground (amongst others). I think all F35 are cleared to use ASRAAM
The F35B are supposedly due to be cleared for Meteor soon, but I am not aware of any intention to clear the -A for this weapon: hopefully, with both the UK and Germany now to operate both -As and the Meteor, that will happen, but initially at least, the RAF will be unable to deploy the (currently) best long range air-to-air weapon on these aircraft.
Similarly, the SPEAR3 replacement for Brimstone is slated to be cleared on Typhoon and the F35B, but I'm not sure what the intent is with regards to the -A.
On top of all that, the ability to carry B61 also raises questions. The UK was not previously part of the NATO dual-key arrangement - we had (UK designed and built) WE177 carried by the Tonkas (Tornadoes). I believe the coldwar era dual key system involved US bombs under US (Armed) guard, on German/Italian/etc airbases - i.e. the bombs and aircraft were co-located.
The declared plan is that the RAF -As will be based at Marham - so does that mean that there will now be nuclear weapon storage and US personnel there? Or do the RAF F35As have to stage through a US base? Or is Britain going to take ownership of US B61s? or...?
It would certainly appear to be an utterly bonkers decision if we were to buy the dozen or so F35A as an additional order to the existing F35 procurement package. As this deal is actually substituting the F35B in the original deal for the same number of F35A, it is perhaps somewhat less of a crazy decision.
With the current uncertainty and erratic changes in policy and direction from The White House, the sane course of action would probably be to either pause or cancel the original contract, but I am not sure what the UK could purchase from elsewhere instead? (and asking to vary.cancel the agreed contract would almost certainly incur a significant financial penalty). Plus there is the not insignificant matter of UK defence manufacturer input regarding the F35 (about 15% according to Lockheed Martin, although I am not sure whether that is by value or by weight?).
Financial penalties depend on the country issuing them to have significant power and influence
That's something not guaranteed in the medium/long term as everyone's now reassessing their relationships - past and present - seeing a lot of red flags which were previously handwaved away
The guy in the Oval Office at the moment is somewhat like Tertiary Syphilis - an indicator of a long-term severe infection that's now untreatable
Given what Starmer keeps caving in with the US at the moment anything is possible.
The Biofuel plants is another piece of crass stupidity. Lets put in some sort of crappy trade agreement on tariffs that disadvantages UK companies even more then not provide any support.
Starmer could be sold or accept anything, not matter how rubbish it is.
My understanding is that as an NPT nuclear-weapon state (unlike current US nuclear sharing states) the UK can happily buy US nukes. Indeed there's been lots of tech-sharing historically. But maybe it'll be a case of buying the B61 kit but putting British warheads in, as with Trident?
To be honest with the vagueness of the announcement it looks like just creating options at this point. Get the aircraft in service and worry about exactly where the weapons come from later. With the Europeans fretting about facing up to Russia potentially without the US nuclear umbrella it suddenly seems a sensible and relatively cheap capability to have.
The US will "lend" the nukes to the UK and other countries, most of which are not nuclear weapons states, under the "nuclear sharing" agreement. The same applied to nuclear warheads for air defence missiles which Canada had until these became obsolete in the 1980s. The US quite happily "lends" nuclear weapons to other countries, regardless of what the NPT may say.
The weapons are stored in bunkers which are officially mini "US bases" and so are under US control. They only get released to other countries when about to be used, in which case it's a bit too late for the Russians to file legal complaints over it anyway.
The UK designs and builds its own warheads for submarine launched ballistic missiles because the UK wants control over whether or not these missiles are used and what they are aimed at.
That might well be the excuse trotted out by the MoD. However it's bollocks. The UK doesn't own the SLBMs. It leases them from the US. Which means the US has control over whether or not these missiles are used and what they are aimed at.
The UK is however free to use other platforms to deliver its warheads. Deliveroo and Parcelforce spring to mind.
Royal Navy has operational independent control of SSBN launched Trident D5 ICBM. For cist reasons the D5 maintenance is shared with USN however control is not impacted due to the stocks held for that reason. USN agrees that RN should be independent since its US national interest to complicate the aggressors decisions. Ditto La France and MN nuclear weapons.
It's nothing more than an FSB talking point that UK isn't independent. They wish...
Thats meaningless when we rely on the yanks for maintenance of the trident missile that delivers them
Could be worse. Much of Russia's silo-based missile fleet (R-36) was designed and built by a now-Ukrainian firm (Yuzhny Machine-Building Plant, now "Pivdenmash")...
The last major upgrade was Mod 5, which was deployed 1991-2009, I don't suppose they've had much engineering support since 2022.
Given how well the successor (RS-28 Sarmat) is going (4/4 failed tests)... we may not be too shabby by comparison.
Frankly, I would prefer they all fail shortly after launch, and save at least some of the world from MAD (probably a bit of nasty fallout from the fissile materials in the northern hemisphere, but if it's lower-altitude it might spare the Antipodes).
Could be worse. Much of Russia's silo-based missile fleet (R-36) was designed and built by a now-Ukrainian firm (Yuzhny Machine-Building Plant, now "Pivdenmash")...
I think you mean 'Soviet', and much of the skills and kit was transferred to Russia after 1991. Also some FUN! given the same firm also designed & built rocket engines for the US until politics interfered with that US procurement.
Given how well the successor (RS-28 Sarmat) is going (4/4 failed tests)... we may not be too shabby by comparison.
Alleged failures. But Russia has a wide selection of many of which have been going back to meet their supposed makers. Including the successful(?) test of their possibly R-26 derived Oreshnik. Poor Pivdenmash got smashed. Maybe. It probably won't be long before Pivdenmash is back in Russia and they can do their own BDA.
"Not to mention the UK SSBN's have a really poor servicability record too?"
A funny thing happens to Submarines as they age: They need exponentially increasing amounts of service. Just like airliners there's a cycle limit on them, complicated by the depth of that cycle
The UK's problem isnt' that the fleet is becoming increasingly geriatric, it's that not enough is being invested in replacing them (Quality British Planning)
Not that it matters because the UK is heading to a point where most of the RN is mothballed because it can't afford to put to sea
We only need to face up to Russia because of the mess we have created. Possibly, by agencies and industry to justify spending of our taxes on themselves and the desire of the US to be the only big boy in the world. Russia tried several times to integrate with the West to create one huge alliance after the end of the Soviet era. They probably saw that as protection against the growth of Asia and its coming demand on their eastern flank. The US has also been concerned at challenges developing from Europe centered around Germany. So I have no doubts that they are behind the knee-capping of German industrial strength. Their deep state only sees Europe as a buffer against the Russian threat they manufactured.
Of course that could be total bollacks, but it's as good an explanation as any for the insanity that now prevails.
This post has been deleted by its author
If dealing with a sane opponent, Nordstream made a lot of sense. By making them financially interdependent they wouldn't be attacking anytime soon
Merkel grew up in East Germany and knows how Russian minds work. Unfortunately that all goes out the window once you get sociopaths in the top chairs
The destruction of nascent Russian democracy is something whose responsiblity can be placed squarely at the feet of USA neoliberals who saw the oligarchs as an easy path to cheap oil and mineral access
This IS a mess of our (western nations) own creation but regardless of the origin point it's still a mess that needs dealing with, preferably in ways that don't result in even more complications down the line
The song about the old lady who swallowed a fly might well be an allegory for the way USA has approached foreign policy over the last 8 decades
If they were determined to buy more land-based fast jets the latest Typhoon T5 would have made a lot more sense and give a bigger boost to British defence industry, preserving skills in preparation for the next-gen Tempest.
Even the messaging around this (look - nuclear-capable jets!) is pure spin. The idea that one would use a tactical nuclear weapon, even in response to similar use by an enemy, just makes escalation to a full nuclear exchange more likely.
Typhoon could in theory carry B61 - there does not seem to be any obvious restriction on weight or dimension that would rule it out, but this is where the US seems to have played games.
The Germans used their Tonka's for the NATO dual-key nuclear mission (so the US clearly shared sufficient data to enable the airframe to be cleared for the earlier model of B61).
When the Tornados were finally retired, this left the Germans with no aircraft cleared for the nuclear mission.
The 'popular version' of what then happened is that the US insisted that Germany continue to honour the dual key agreement and provide aircraft capable of carrying B61. The Germans then proposed Typhoon be cleared, but the US refused either to carry out the clearance tests, or to provide the data to enable the Germans to do it themselves. This left the Germans the option of buying F35A or F/A18.
Obviously, these sort of decisions are actually kept secret, so the above is really nothing more than a somewhat anti-American rumour, but the Germans and now the British are purchasing F35A to carry B61, rather than putting Typhoon through the clearance procedure to carry/deploy the weapon.
The idea that one would use a tactical nuclear weapon
B61 actually goes up to 300-400kt. It's just capable of being dialled down to 'tactical' yields, much like Trident.
'Tactical' is definitely a misnomer though. Any use of a nuke is going to be a far-reaching strategic decision, however if you *might* use one it's probably best if the yield can be made as low as possible. The most sensible of the non-sensible uses is as an anti-fleet weapon far out at sea and then adjusting the yield to sink only the ships you want to is ideal.
300-400kt
Sorry, I got this wrong. The B61-12 variant the F35-A can carry does only go up to 50kt (the usual ceiling for calling them 'tactical', but still huge. Half a single Trident warhead's max yield, notwithstanding they also MIRV).
The modern B61-13 variant that's in the 300-400kt range apparently "the U.S. now does not plan to deploy it on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter" ( https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon/2023/10/27/us-to-build-new-nuclear-gravity-bomb/ ) although the full reasons and whether/how quickly that could change are not clear, considering it's packaging is essentially identical to the -12. Also apparently not part of the nuclear sharing programme (again, currently). It's only for B-2s, so presumably mainly a safety/exclusivity thing as hopefully not many of them will ever be deployed.
'Does not plan to deploy' is an ongoing policy decision. The B61-13 replaces old higher yield B61-7 weapons that are as you point out are an order of magnitude higher than 'tactical' usage might require, so they're a new for old replacement. Gravity bombs of this warhead size are pretty much only to allow a continuing strategic deterrent (via B-2) should someone secretly deploy a credible anti ballistic missile system.
Credible defence can only mean 100% guarantee of interception because being 99% effective against 1,000’s of warheads still leaves the defender with more casualties in one day than any country received during the entirety of WW2. That's also assuming the intercepted warheads don't land as dirty bombs vaguely close to where they were aimed at anyway.
It's a slightly perplexing purchase.
It's a ridiculous purchase. It feels more like a UOR (Urgent Operational Requirement), which is how the Army ended up with a totally disparate wheeled fleet after Iraq/Afghan and had to have a thin-out to what they actually needed (standardising on systems with common transmissions, etc). It's all very well buying a load of off-the-shelf kit when you realise your Snatch LandRovers don't work in an environment with high IED threat and need something NOW, but living with it long-term doesn't work from a logistics/supply-chain/training/maintenance perspective.
Not that tthese airframes are going to be delivered for a few years anyway, but rushing out and buying a tiny fleet of complex aircraft that sit uncomfortably between F35B and Typhoon is a strategy-free decision. Unless they ultimately turn around and change a significant portion of our 138-airframe commitment to F35As and give the RAF's -Bs to the Navy so we're running two fleets. But that diminishes our 15% workshare since a big chunk of it is the lift-fan in the Bs (made by Rolls Royce).
As others have alluded to, it seems like a panacea to the US - "We can deliver a nuclear mission because we have B61-capable aircraft". Even though that capability is on paper, there won't be more than 4-6 airframes available at a time and we don't actually want to threaten use of tactical nukes, because that lowers the threshold for nuclear war. And we already have a competent strategic deterrent.
I think the RAF's view is that what weapons they can carry, and how they could be refuelled, are immaterial, because these planes will never leave the OCU. They're being bought purely to save money for the training unit - cheaper to buy, fewer maintenance hours - and will never expect to face anything other than a simulated enemy. The "nuclear-capable" bit is just for political consumption.
In spring 2022, Russia occupied approximately 25% of Ukraine.
This was the Russia 'high tide' when they were still actively trying to take Kyiv and Kharkov, before they were pushed back.
Russia now occupies about 20% (last precise figure I saw was actually 18-and-a-bit %).
I think we need to be careful about the wording here.
Russia currently controls 20% of Ukraine. Three years ago, it did not control 25%. It merely had some cannon fodder sitting there. But the OP said "occupied" so I'd say you are strictly correct but the OP's intended meaning was also correct.
Russia currently controls 20% of Ukraine. Three years ago, it did not control 25%. It merely had some cannon fodder sitting there. But the OP said "occupied" so I'd say you are strictly correct but the OP's intended meaning was also correct.
Technically, it's a bit of both. Russia defacto occupies and controls around 20% and has annexed oblasts that are now officially parts of the Russian Federation. At least as far as Russia is concened. Ukraine and the West might not agree, but possession is 9/10ths of the law. Ukraine is also kinda helping with some gerrmandering edicts. Zelensky's term expired over a year ago, people keep pointing out that democracy and elections are generally a GoodThing(tm). So Zelensky and his entertainment lawyer/agent have been stripping Ukrainians of their citizenship so they wouldn't be able to vote. But then figuring out a fair, plausibly democratic election representing the will of Ukrainians inside the '91 borders would be a tad tricky, especially given the number of displaced Ukrainians.
The 'cannon fodder' bit is also something of a misnomer, along with the usual 'full scale invasion' garbage. So the SMO started with a declaration that the objective was attrition, and removing Ukraine's ability to wage war. So it began with 2-300k Russias vs 800k or so Ukrainians, who'd taken the cover of Minsk to re-arm and re-constitute following the mauling they'd taken during the civil war that began in 2014. Our media fixated on Russian troop buildups, and glossed over Ukraines, which were massing ready to try and recapture Donbas and Crimea.. So we ignored Russia's red lines, Russia intervened, advance deep into Ukraine and forced Ukraine to redeploy their forces.
Then the media dutifully cheered at the awesome counter-offensive that beat the Russian's back.. And again glossed over that given the amount of forces Russia committed to the SMO, and that it's never been a war of occupation, Russia never intended to hold that territory. It didn't have enough troops, it didn't bother digging in, it just forced Ukraine to spread their forces thinly over a 1,000km front line, and has been systematically destroying them ever since. And we've been helping Ukraine fight to the last Ukrainian.
So where Russia did intend to hold territory, it did dig in. So the Surovikin lines were dug in a 'Come at me Bro!' kinda way. We had the media singing the praises of the Spring/Summer counter offensive. The Ukrainian blitzkrieg with the best.. I mean whatever 2nd hand kit we could cobble together would punch through Russia's land bridge, and create photo opportunities for BoJo, Ursula and Zelensky sipping cocktails on a Crimean beach. Victory was certain. Or some Ukrainian commanders kept saying it was far from certain. Especially when Sirsky decided to split Ukraine's forces. So that counter-offensive ended up with a few kms around Robotyne, and a lot of dead Ukrainians and destroyed equipment.
And Ukraine's been doing much the same all along the front line. Attempting to hold territory rather than conserve forces. Trying to reinforce rather than conserve forces. And then there was Kursk and the invasion of Russia.. Which got the media excited, briefly, but came at a horrific cost.
Which is also back to the story. So we're buying 12 F-35s to maybe drop gravity bombs. Whoopee. How would this help in a situation like Ukraine? Sane people are trying to prevent that conflict going nuclear. Israel's been happily flying around helping Russia and her allies gather intelligence so their capabilities and vulnerabilities are better understood. We can probably fill the seats of those F-35s, but aircraft alone cannot win 'wars'.. That needs boots on the ground, artillery, drones etc, not 5th or 6th gen aircraft.. Ukraine's demonstrating this, especially as a war of attrition. When it runs out of 'cannon fodder', it has no option but to seek terms, or we attempt to put our own boots on the ground.. And most of the West has a serious shortage of men (and women) prepared to go somewhere like Ukraine, sit in a trench and get TOS'd, shelled, or live in constant fear of drones. For some reason, our youngsters aren't exactly willing to volunteer for that duty, or even value concepts like duty.
Thank you for your explanation. I notice I received down votes for asking a question which is interesting. Maybe the down voters work for a government agency; good morning 77th. Doubt they'd actually bother with this channel. My views would seem to align with yours although I would say it much briefer being lazy; we are told total bollacks by state mafia and media.
Thank you for your explanation. I notice I received down votes for asking a question which is interesting. Maybe the down voters work for a government agency; good morning 77th. Doubt they'd actually bother with this channel. My views would seem to align with yours although I would say it much briefer being lazy; we are told total bollacks by state mafia and media.
I pretty much ignore the angry thumbs, especially after attracting a skiddy who's automated downvoting & combined it with a killfile so they can downvote without having to actually bother reading comments. But it's one of those things where politics and propaganda informs, or misinforms the public. Which is bad because in situations like Ukraine, it's costing a lot of lives. Or good, if you're making money or political capital out of the conflict.
And there's a lot of money to be made. So NATO is very pleased because it's getting 5% of its members GDP, which will divert money away from social & other government spending. It's a 'defence' organisation gearing up to fight Russia, and pretty much repeating the same mistakes Germany made during WW2 and spending on wunderwaffe rather than basics. Russia has, and is spending much less, and achieving far more. Spending on a few F-35s that can drop freefall nukes is a bit pointless because if things get to a state where that capability is actually needed, then it's too late for much of the world. Russia's nuclear doctrine is very clear that if Russia's existence is threatened, it goes nuclear. It's not like the old days of the Cold War either, where nukes were planned to stop the Warsaw Pact forces streaming through the Fulga Gap. Tactical nukes wouldn't seem effective in the Ukraine scenario given they're fighting over a 1,000km front line and have their forces (and Russias) pretty spread out.
Which is also back to defining terms like 'control' and 'occupy'. Russia's adapted their tactics and does pretty much the same thing. Probe with small units, resurrecting concepts like cavalry except this time using motorbikes instead of horses. If they find a weakness, they exploit it and start another 'cauldron'. Ukraine tried doing the same with their invasion of Kursk, which had an effect of drawing some Russian forces to counter that. Which they did, but at the cost of maybe 50-60k killed and wounded. Russia expelled Ukraine, then kinda said "Well, we're here now, so might as well press on" and is advancing into Ukraine's Sumy region with around 50k troops, and is steadily occupying Ukrainian villages and towns. And it's also looking like it's going to advance in the south, with a bit of a pause in the east. So splitting what's left of Ukraine's forces.
But the entire British Army is 70k soldiers, which includes all the support and logistics arms. Our Commander Field Army has just 2 and a bit divisions vs Russia's 20. Sure, we're meant to fight as part of NATO or EU ventures, but France has 2 divisions, Germany has 3, Estonia could send both their soldiers. So after years of defence cuts, we don't exactly had a lot of boots on the ground.. Or reserve forces, which are often battlefield casualty replacements. Reversing those cuts is going to be extremely challenging. Join the Army, see the world! Or join the Army, live in primitive field conditions even when you're in barracks. Strangely, our youngsters aren't exactly keen to do this, and improving conditions is going to be extremely expensive. Or we could introduce conscription and national service, which would be expensive and upopular.
So we could send pretty much the entire British Army to try and hold Sumy. Our soldiers are no more bomb, shell or drone-proof than Ukraines. Russia 'controls' more of Ukraine than the maps show because it works on cutting supply & logistics routes. So exerts fire control over maybe 20km more than the territory it controls, using drones and artillery. We could maybe counter that with our own artillery, except we've already given most of that to Ukraine, and it'll take years to make new field guns & SPGs. Then Russia actively hunts artillery and destroys it. Each gun needs maybe 4 soldiers to operate, and soldiers take 18+ years to replace.. And much of Europe has a declining birth rate. Sure, we'd have Ukraine's missing arm and have more air assets like F-35s, but that assumes F-35s survive.. And just how effective an F-35 would be in a close air support role. Cheaper aircraft like A-10s would probably be more effective, but those aren't sexy like 5th or 6th gen aircraft, so we're not building those.
Strangely, over a five to ten year period the average spend on RAF, RN and Army used to work out about 30,30,30 plus a little bit for the important things. Having tactical nukes removed from the RAF reduced their roles to deep penetration (as shown by desert storm, to be vastly successful) or close air support (combat, not support roles) which is another way of committing suicide. So the nuclear capable bit gives the RAF additional bidding rights for the odd ten percent. And, of course, they are now part of the UK's Nuclear Deterrant.
The 12 planes are pretty clearly intended to be dedicated for the "nuclear sharing" role, where European planes drop nuclear weapons "loaned" to them by the Americans. The UK retired its won tactical nuclear bombs years ago.
The Americans will only release the nuclear weapons as part of a planned NATO operation that they have agreed to, so any British planes will be part of a much larger overall NATO operation involving multiple countries. The UK planes will simply refuel from either NATO owned aircraft (there is a joint pool of about 10), or from those of another NATO member. There is no reason why they would need to refuel from a specifically RAF aircraft.
And of course this assumes that there will be any need to refuel, as these bombs will only be used when things are really desperate and the Russians are advancing across central Europe, in which case the RAF would be nuking Russian forces in NATO territory, not nuking Russia.
As to where the bombs will be stored, possibly the British planes will fly to continental Europe and be held in waiting there along with other aircraft form other countries, and then the bombs loaded from US controlled bunkers at the airbase there. This would be a coordinated attack, not the UK going off on its own.
This purchase is clearly more of a political and diplomatic gesture than anything else. As to whether these planes will actually ever be delivered is another question. A future government may cancel the order or switch it to B models if the situation looks different by then.
>” as these bombs will only be used when things are really desperate and the Russians are advancing across central Europe”
Etween now and then I can see these being deployed to “attack” other targets, which currently the US has to plan and execute long range missions for.
One of the most surprising things about the US long range missions to Iran was that the equipment actually worked and no one had to ditch.
I get the impression the RAFs Scampton to Port Stanley and back really knocked the US military ego to the extent they have been planning and looking for an opportunity to replicate and do better.
"The UK planes will simply refuel from either NATO owned aircraft"
Meantime there a\re a bunch of OTHER RAF aircraft with exactly ther same refuelling problem (KC135, C5A, etc)
The RAF has wanted to put tail boom refuellers on the KC2s for at least 8 years for this reason. The KC3s have a central drogue unit but it's "removable"
Modifying F35s for drogue use is kinda like the Air Ministry's VC10 requirement: Pointless when there are much cheaper solutions available (In the VC10 case, longer runways at hot'n'high airports on the Empire Routes allowed 707s to use them and collectively cost less than ONE VC10)
On your last point RAF Lakenheath - actually a USAF base for the F35A, F22 and multiple other B61 certified US jets - is apparently a designated store for the next generation of the B61 (currently being upgraded with finest US pork barrels) and is 40mi away from Marham.
One supposes the Brit F35A's will stage out of Lakenheath if needed.
The F35 'IS' far better than the Harrier apart from one situation when it actually went to war, operating out of tents from a grass strip covered in emergency bomb damage repair panels. If the RAF would show F35s operating that way in training as they did with the Harrier throughout the '70s I'd be far more comfortable with the 'every' tag.
Yes it was very short sighted, binning them almost decade before the replacement would appear in tiny numbers.
I’m unsure why we built 2 grossly over-engineered very large VSTOL aircraft carriers to fill them them with VSTOL F35B Aircraft ?
The V part of this not really needed and seems to have hugely complicated everything.
The US Navy use long range F35C’s……for Top-Gun style sling-shot launch large carriers ….
(Only the USMC and RN use the F35B’s…!!)
And the Italian Navy, and soon the Japanese, with Spain and South Korea toying with the idea.
To answer your question as with all things Government and MOD is in year spending. Adding catapults and arrestor gear to the carrier would make them cost more than the Treasury were willing to pay in any one year during the decade they were being built. So instead the slighter greater costs of VSTOL have been spread over the purchase of 'up to' 130 F-35s over a longer period.
The key part of the previous posters comment is "vast amounts of steam" - i.e. the carrier needs to use a steam turbine-based method of propulsion. *These* days that basically means nuclear propulsion, whereas *historically* it meant coal/oil fired boilers such as were fitted to our last cat-equipped carriers.
Since it's no longer particularly desirable to use steam turbines with traditionally fuelled boilers, and since there are good reasons for not using nuclear plants, QE/POW went the route of diesel/gas turbine prime movers tied to generators, with the electrical power from those fed to electric drives turning the propshafts. Consequently, they don't have a handy source of steam for traditional cats, but did have the electrical capacity required to allow for some vague hand-wavey suggestions that we might, possibly, at some indeterminate point in the future, if all the moons and stars align, be able to retrofit an EMALS setup...
"Currently the RAF use ASRAAM and Meteor as air to air weapons, plus Brimstone soon to be replaced by SPEAR 3 for air to ground (amongst others). I think all F35 are cleared to use ASRAAM"
This is a software/certification issue. I would hope that on that side of the software, there is a great deal of commonality between the A, B, and C variants (i.e., the same modules are tested and used in the same manner).
> The stated intent of using the -A as a sort of advanced trainer make some sense
Agree, it also has the potential to head off US objections to the UK maintaining a diversity of suppliers and so ordering stuff from UK and European consortiums.
The nuclear bit is probably words for the gallery rather than actual usable capability - if these could however be launched from an aircraft carrier (UK or US) this might carry more weight.
The last few tests of the UK's sub-launched nukes made like catherine wheels, so we may be switching to US ones if we can buy them. That said, they will come with more strings attached than Pinnochio.
The UK is already buying an insane number of F-35Bs, so getting some F-35As as part of the deal won't make much difference and offers some flexibility.
And it is possible that the RAF have a cunning plan to convert them to electric cells. AA ones. Lots of them. Creating the Duracell-35A.
The US already control bits of Norfolk/Chagos Islands by proxy for bombing/driving over the locals. Maybe the government are going to cede to Trump an unwanted bit of the UK (Wales?) as a forward base, in return for a small chunk off the steel tariffs.
A key government target here will be to have enough poor people die waiting for NHS treatment, removing them from the benefit budget and shifting the cash to mil kit.
The 5% NATO spending target has been greatly helped by the decline of Sterling at Brexit and the on-going effects of Long Brexit destroying the economy. Thus, the UK's GDP sinks and 5% of it will eventually be a lot less than 2.5% of our pre-Brexit GDP. Genius eh?
I think he's just throwing shit at the wall to see what pleases the orange twat, because he knows that far too many of his citizens would be hostile to the idea of rekindling deeper ties with Europe, so he's in charge of a largely bankrupt country and stuck between a rock and a hard place. He'll pledge to buy American nukes, but cut disability benefit - what the hell kind of Labour government is that?!
Imagine the reaction from the right-wingers if the EU had control over the kill switch.
Farage, The Telegraph, Douglas Murray, Richard North, would all be screaming and wailing about sovereignty.
But they are perfectly fine with British taxpayer money being spent on something that Trump will have control over, making us total cucks.
Its an essentially meaningless tactical politcal decision that appeases the Orange One and costs the UK nothing. The delivery wont happen until near the end of the decade when we'll know whether the Orange One is "elected" Dictator for Life of not.
Its militarily strategy flawed, though hardly a big deal if they can be used for partial F35B training conversion, so tactically its a wash.
It is however politically tactically astute whilst we wait out the Orange One, who which like it or not Starmer seems pretty good at managing.
<......"......and costs the UK nothing"......>
Exactly this, because the F35A are coming <instead> of part of a future tranche of F35B. This isn't an extra order.
Much is being spouted about a total of 138 F35 having been ordered, but the number actually confirmed so far is only about half of that. There never has been an absolute guarantee that the UK would eventually take the full 138 .
The kill switch is a myth. Reality is spare parts, software releases and mission data are required daily to operate F35 and LM knows that their FMS pipeline depends on reliable supply.
Please pay less attention to conspiracy theories and FSB talking points, designed to undermine NATO defence.
Please pay less attention to conspiracy theories and FSB talking points, designed to undermine NATO defence.
Rutte is more than capable enough of doing that on his own. See also the curious group photo from the recent NATO summit. Wives, girlfriends and gatecrashers seem to have ended up in that one. Front, centre and very yellow. How odd. At least Kier had somewhere to rest his elbows, if the burden of state became too heavy. An interesting challenge for NATO & EU members though, cut social spending and divert the cash to anti-social spending instead!
I have no evidence of a kill switch but are you telling me that there's no potential of one being in existence? You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to believe in the scenario. You saying it's a myth doesn't make it untrue. How do you prove it's a myth? What's to say that you're not just trying to spread the lie that it's a myth?
Is it worth the chance?
What is a fact is that we'd need the permission of the US to actually use them.
"The kill switch is a myth."
As an overt kill switch, yes.
However, as reported on this very website several years ago, F35s need a daiily startup code - obtained from the US Department of State - and are constantly reporting telematics home
If the jet cannot make contact with its mothership for 30 days, all systems are bricked
Spares are on a "just in time" basis which I'm sure will work out well in a high sortie scenario, let alone if TPTB decide to sulk
It will be interesting to see how many F35 orders are actually exercised and how many options simply evaporate. The Orange menace said the quiet bits out loud and caused all allies to reassess their current and historical relations with Team USA, belatedly spotting many red flags that had previously been handwaved away
The initial commitment to 138 F35s was way back in 2012 by David Cameron, hence my comment about "fucking Tories", it seems unlikely that was a trap set for a future government but the 2024 announcement, perhaps so, or maybe it was just to ensure they weren't asked to repay whatever backhanders they'd been given.
Agree with the initial procurement and like you have question marks over the 2024 announcement which was probably more (at the time) to reaffirm commitment to the GB-US relationship than anything else - would not be surprised if behind it was concern that we hadn’t ordered another batch or given how we are discovering the US is having issues about producing planes in sufficient quantities, it was a statement of patience. Obviously, politics being politics, it is something that will be used as a stick as and when an opportunity arises.
There are two basic forms of aerial refuelling: probe and drogue or flying boom.
With P&D, the fuel line (the drogue) streams out from the tanker aircraft and the pilot of the receiving aircraft (on which is the probe) is responsible for making the connection. This is the most common form of air to air refuelling.
However, the US Air Force using Flying Boom. Here, the receiving aircraft flies straight and level (or possibly manoeuvres under instruction, not entirely sure), and the boom operator on the tanker has to mate the boom with the receiving aircraft. This technique was developed because the big US strategic bombers of the 1950's burnt fuel so quickly, and the rate of fuel transfer using D&P being relatively slow: the recipient aircraft were burning a lot of the fuel just during the refuelling process. FB enables much faster refuelling of a single aircraft.
However, apart from the US Air Force, few other forces use FB. I think Japan does, because they are mostly a US equipped air force. Notably, US Navy and USMC use P&D.
Tankers with FB seem nowadays to have the ability to also refuel using P&D, but the reversal (P&D refuelers having a boom) does not seem to be true: The equipment for a drogue refueler is quite small and light, and you don't need specialist trained personnel on the aeroplane. With a boom, you have to haul around the weight and volume of the boom (meaning less capacity to haul fuel), and have a dedicated operator on the tanker.
Also, with P&D it is routine for two aircraft to refuel simultaneously from 1 tanker (it may even be possible to do 3 at once, since tankers often have 3 drogues: 1 under each wing and 1 under the fuselage). With a boom equipped tanker it is strictly 1 recipient at a time. So while a boom enables one aircraft to refuel quicker than it would with P&D, P&D enable an aircraft formation to refuel more quickly than using a boom, thus avoiding the situation where by the time the last aircraft has refuelled, the first aircraft to refuel is low on fuel again.
The RAF could buy a boom equipped tanker to support the F35A, but that has the cost associated with the purchase, maintenance and training of the flight and ground crew, plus you need at least 2, because aircraft do go unserviceable.
The RAF could buy a boom equipped tanker to support the F35A, but that has the cost associated with the purchase, maintenance and training of the flight and ground crew, plus you need at least 2, because aircraft do go unserviceable.
The RAF is already leasing (because the A330MRTT are not bought by the RAF) a plane that can have a boom installed... Since it's already installed on the same plane in other air forces.
It's just a matter of adding the boom to the existing ones, there's no need to buy a fleet of specific tanker.
Or, given they are leasing, one stipulates a boom as future requirenment and makes it the leasor's problem
MOD procurement is a mess but in this instance there are good reasons for pushing this back to Airtankers (including that the company is owned by EADS, with the A330-200 modification ability in-house already)
Bear in mind that ALL A330 MRTTs are converted civilian A330-200 units and several saw airline service before conversion rather than being ex-factory jobs.The result is a high degree of modularity in terms of the addon fuelling bits (The KC3 ventral drogue setup is listed as "removeable", which may mean it can be swapped for a boom relatively easily)
There are no A330Neo MRTTs (yet), although studies are underway to work out how to mitigate the loss of the outer hardpoints from the new wing
"apart from the US Air Force, few other forces use FB"
Which has _already_ resulted in the RAF being unable to aerial-refuel its own RC135, C17, C5, E7 and P8 aircraft. The F35A is merely an addition to the incompatibility list
Funnily enough the RAF floated the idea of adding booms to its KC2s 8 years ago. "Gosh, I wonder why?"
That happens when one has big consultancy procurement mindset. Surely - when properly done - you would order compatible tankers and IP to service and build both planes and tankers yourself.
I think like others have said, the F-35s might just be a stop gap until FCAS/GCAP gets off the ground. Then people can stop asking if their 'fighters' are pregnant. Or grounded. Again. Or EU members get pissed off with Rutte's message to his master about how he's going to make the EU pay. 5% of the EU/NATO members is a lot of money, and the US hasn't been the most reliable partner recently. So some of that 5% goes to GCAP, which with NATO overlap should still qualify for spending committments, and give the Pan-European Defence Organisation more independence. But along the GCAP way will probably be lots of lobbying and ITAR shenanigans.
And then whether we'll create a EUroNuke so we're not dependent on US bombs and release authority.
Actually it's a non issue...
Contrary to what is implied, the A330MRTT can be equipped with a boom and has already been succesfully used to refuel F-35A during tests for the lost KC-X program.
The fact is that right now none of the UK A330MRTT has a boom.
As for the boom, it's called the Aerial Refuelling Boom System and equips the Australian, Emiraty, Saoudian, Singapourian and Franch A330MRTT.
Seing that it's already an existing configuration, it's probably not that hard to add a boom to the UK tankers from the engineering point of view... It's probably going to be more difficult from a parliamentary/finacial point of view.
That's a bit harsh. The Aerial Refuelling Boom System on Aussie MRTTs took a while (a year or so post-delivery) to iron out bugs and performance issues but it performs well now. That was all concluded about a decade ago. Since there's no non-recurring engineering (NRE), and there's a decade of usage and cost data to rely on, scoping the project for adding ARBS to UK MRTTs isn't that hard: the engineering has been done; the costs for acquisition and sustainment are well-documented.
As a counter point, I'd like to present basically every military procurement ever, which has gone over-budget and over-schedule. Sure, the boom system should be easy and cheap to implement in the UK, but I doubt it will be either.
But hey, I'm sure some defence contractors will make money off it, so at least someone will be happy
I'm somewhat surprised UK regtards don't point out the *obvious* and true reason:
They don't need to go far enough for refueling! Just far enough to hit those dastardly boats in the Channel. And, of course, their source *across* the Channel, with a battle cry of "Remember Agincourt!"
Seeing as even Labour is now blowing the "immigrants are evil" horn
It’s nice that Duxford now has an example of all three V bombers the British government commissioned (the things that could be achieved when we spend >10% of GDP on defence) Plus the history of why the Vulcan was the last one left standing, even though it wasn’t in theory the best of the bunch.
No high tariffs for Land Rovers etc and we have to buy the stupid F35-A's.
This is 100% a waste of money. Do the engines have to be sent to Turkey for Overhaul? Guess who has a land border with Iran?
Time for a P.45 for Starmer and especially 'her from accounts'.
As long at it isn't Farage in No 10, I'm happy.
We are already buying F-35Bs, this is just swapping the model. Like asking BMW to change your order from a 330 to a 325. So no more money is going to the USA. In fact initially less becuase the F-35A is cheaper than the B. Servicing of engines etc. will be as for the rest of the fleet.
The real question not being posed is whether this development represents the start of a move to implement a version of the Fenwick proposals to replace Trident with an air-based deterrent. See https://basicint.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Assessing-an-F-35-based-nuclear-deterrent.-Kevan-Jones-MP..pdf for instance.
Possibly, but seems unlikely: three of the 4 new RN ballistic missile submarines have started construction.
If as a country we can't cancel the hugely expensive white elephant that is HS2, I doubt we'd scrap the submarines and replace them with an air-based deterrent that most people view as inferior, though given the muppets* in charge in the UK that we currently have and have had over the last 25 years, I wouldn't put money on that.
* I apologise to any muppets reading this post, and acknowledge that the average muppet shows greater intelligence, competence, honesty and integrity than almost any UK politician of the 21st century.
It's no white elephant mate. As well as providing jobs it's adding much needed capacity to a very busy (and hence expensive) line. Even places not on the HS2 route will benefit. For example there can be more trains from Wales through Birmingham New Street
Don't believe everything the press moan about.
Fair points - but its the 'high speed' bit of the line that I base my comment on.
High speed rail requires flatter curves both horizontally and vertically, so the route alignment is heavily constrained, the track bed needs to be kept and maintained at a higher quality, and the energy to run at higher speeds is more than needed for the same train operating at lower speeds.
The time saving from high-speed London to Birmingham, station-to-station is good in percentage terms, but real journeys are door to door, and when you include the travel time within London and within Birmingham, the time saving from HS becomes marginal.
I thoroughly agree that new rail capacity was needed, but it could have been done as 'normal speed' rail, much cheaper, with less disruption, but also less for the politicians to boast about.
I fear we have deviated somewhat from the main thread of the overall discussion, though...
> It's no white elephant mate.
That’s because it’s a political vanity project.
The “capacity” rationale was grasped at by politicians in an attempt to justify something that didn't have an economic benefit or business case that stacked up, something the PAC have repeatedly pointed out, including pointing out that other cheaper projects would deliver bigger bang for bucks sooner.
I suggest going back to primary sources and reviewing all the assumptions about capacity; assumptions lockdown and WFH/technology development and adoption have blown out the water.
"hugely expensive white elephant that is HS2"
You missed the wood for the trees.
ECML and WCML are _full_ and running express services on them makes things 10 times worse because of the spacing requirements. Getting those services off the coastal mainlines allows local stopping services to be significantly upgraded
Upgrading and eliminting the bottlenecks on either of the coastal routes is orders of magnitude more expensive than HS2 even after the cost blowouts.
The single biggest problem with HS2 has been the lack of committment to getting it up and running as soon as possible by pouring enough cash in to allow buildouts in ther north as well as the south.
Cancelling the northern section was one of the most stupid short-sighted decisions in recent history. A fully functional HS2 spine to Edinburgh would eliminate big chunks of commuter flights, paying dividends in reduced carbon emissions (amongst other things) and getting people from A to B faster.
But what do you expect? This is a country where government intervention resulted in such world-beating companies as British Leyland and planes like the VC10 (nice craft, but rendered obsolete before first flight by cheaply extending the problematic short/high runways that it was designed for)
>” Upgrading and eliminting the bottlenecks on either of the coastal routes is orders of magnitude more expensive than HS2 even after the cost blowouts.”
That myth.
Buried in the detail, ie. Not in the HS2 documents but in the existing network strategy, the rail strategy to satisfy the capacity forecasts required the upgrade of the existing lines, just that HS2 would permit “fast” travel to avoid the delays over multiple years as the work was done.The Tories thought they could do HS2 instead of investing in the existing infrastructure…
'No' is the short answer. CSAD is a viable and credible strategic deterrent. A strategic deterrent requiring scrambling aircraft (only) is no deterrent at all: those aircraft are far too vulnerable to an enemy's first strike - SLCMs would give as little as 2 minutes warning time.
The USAF's B-52s can stay aloft for hours and fly thousands of miles - they add deterrent value in some scenarios but only when backed by ICBMs and/or submarines, preferably both in a nuclear triad.
B52s only fly because they exist. If the fleet was grounded tomorrow they'd be replaced by Rapid Dragon in 3-4 days and NO replacement bombers would be ordered
The saga of those birds is a tale of political corruption and rampant pork. The USAF itself has tried to retire them on multiple occasions only to be thwarted by Congress. They're a political aircraft, not a military one
Not sure what you mean by this. The NPT doesn’t limit the UK as a self-declared and provable nuclear weapon state from doing anything.
It has already been decided that the four Vanguard-class subs will be replaced by four new Dreadnaught-class boats, and I believe the first three of these are already under construction. The Trident D-5 missile itself, with various upgrades is expected to be viable until the 2040s, and the warheads (ie the physics package itself - the bit that goes bang) and the re-entry vehicles, are made in the UK, we have the technical knowledge and ability to do this ourselves.
My mistake, should have been the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT), which severely restricts our ability to test warheads. Thus whilst we can maintain and replace warheads, proving new designs etc. is more problematic - personally I wouldn’t trust something that that only been designed on a computer with no real world testing to confirm and calibrate the computer model/simulation.
Prior to Putin’s “special military operation” it seemed that potentially in a couple of decades the traditional Cold War nuclear stand off would no longer be relevant and so both sides would decommission, probably when the current generation of submarines become due for replacement….
How is Starmer so daft? How does this make strategic sense in the long run? Not able to be refuelled from RAF tankers? Surely thats a non-starter. Depending on where these birds take off from, they wont even make it out of british airspace without requiring refuelling from AN ALLY. They'll presumably have to already be in British airspace? The weakness in the face of Trump is sickening. Surely no government is better than THIS government?
<....."I wonder how long it will be before we get an accountment that the RAF is buying the new Boeing tanker?".....>
Most likely the answer to that is 'Never'. A 'Flying Boom' type A2A refuelling system can easily be fitted to the A400 (which the RAF alread has on strength - no need for anything from Bong)
He does not realise it but hey, he's content to be Herr Trumpf's lapdog and suck his you know what when commanded.
He should not have bought the F35-A especially when other NATO members are running away from the thing as fast as they can (legally) and bought the Viggen or the Rafal as a stop gap until the next gen plane is available.
I suspect that you meant the Gripen, not the Viggen, seeing as the Viggen has been out of production for many decades.
Neither Gripen nor Rafale are cleared for B61, therefore neither can perform the role it's claimed that the aircraft are being purchased for.
If the requirement was just to buy more tactical jets, then it would be foolish to buy either Gripen or Rafale, when the RAF already operate the superior Typhoon, which also would bring with it significant industrial workshare (which the UK doesn't get from Gripen or Rafale) if more of the type were to be purchased.
But they are not B61 - they have different shape and weight, and therefore affect the carrying aircraft in a different manner to B61.
If you want Rafale to carry B61, it needs to go through the clearance trials for carriage and release, just as every weapon system (whether nuclear or conventional) has to be individually cleared for use on every military aircraft that carries it - but if we are prepared to pay for that / the US will share the data to allow it to happen, we'd get Typhoon cleared instead, since buying Rafale would again result in a new aircraft type being introduced into RAF service.
erm, well the discussion is regarding the decision of the UK to buy F35A to provide a carry capacity for US B61, so Rafale's ability to deploy air-launched nuclear weapons not available to the UK didn't seem entirely relevant.
Why would we want to carry a freefall nuclear bomb? An excellent question, and another part of this whole decision that perplexes me.
You appear to be suggesting that a more sensible option for tactical nuclear weapons (within whatever boundaries of 'sensible' you choose to apply to nuclear weapons) is to use stand-off missiles - I tend to agree.
Typhoon (following clearance work) with French designed ASMP (if the French agree to share), or Rafale with ASMP (again, if the French agree to share) would seem a more credible nuclear weapon system than F35A with freefall B61. However, that would require that France agrees to share their nuclear weapon systems with the UK.
The original post you replied to was talking about 'other NATO members' not specifically the UK. Other NATO members have options. I doubt the French would sell the UK the Rafale due to the whole Eurofighter debacle....
I'm surprised that the UK doesn't have (at least on paper) a nuke capable air launched device. Given that the Trident missiles in the RN subs have locally made warheads. The RAF were super sore about the transfer of the role to the RN. Really no-one has kept a plan B in the back pocket for just such an occasion?
In theory the Eurofighter could carry the B61 but it appears the yanks have refused to certify it.
Given the physical dimensions of a modern small tactical nuke, there's no real impediment to the UK retrofitting warheads to a number of the current underslung loads available for Typhoon. F35A Choice was made because the RAF wanted IMHO: (1) cheaper to buy & use for pilot training use (yes), (2) longer range (yes), (3) greater weapons capacity in larger internal bomb bay (yes),(4) can't ever be used from a carrier (It's all ours! YES YES YES). 1,2&3 are presented to Govt. (4) is never mentioned...
The F35C navy variant would've been a slightly better option as the two UK carriers are due mid life refit in the 2040s and if the option to fit EMALS is taken then the 'C' becomes far more useful, but the RAF would have to share.
But the main reason the F35C is a better fit is quite simple - probe refuelling like all UK jets !
For tihs frog it took less than 10 Seconds... on our side of the Chunnel we all know that the Rafale is one of the two parts of the nuclear triad. ( we lost one part when I don't remember which clownzident decided to close the Plateau d'Albion nuclear missile silos, so now e just have the SSBNs and the Rafale )
And honestly, it shouldn't be that hard to adapt both the B-61 and the Rafale to talk to each other... just look at what the Ukrainians have been able to do when it came to adapting planes and stuff to be launched by planes so that they could work together.
The hardest part is probably going to allow Dassault/Thalès engineers near a B-61 and allowing American armament companies near a Rafale... to work out how ti make both talk to each other.
Oh they were nice, in southern France, near the Rhone valley, in an area known for it's geological faults and earthquakes...
The second link is in French, but it has the coordinates of all the former silos and what they became (when they were reused)
The Maginot Line worked.
The German offensive was directed to the north as the French planned.
It used far less manpower than keeping armies to meet German forces there
It stopped a rapid advance from taking control of French industrial production.
Where it was attacked it slowed German advance and remined effective for most of its length until the French Armistice
The Line worked as intended as I set out
The German advance ACROSS the Maginot Line was not rapid.
The advance to the NORTH of the Line was rapid (too rapid to be sustainable. Only part of the German Army was motorised and was outpacing the foot and horse-drawn infantry and wearing itself out).
That the German army got through the gap in the Ardennes before it could be plugged was fortunate. That the Germans attacked there rather than - as originally planned - further north was seen as a gamble by themselves. They got through and were able to outrun the French command's decision making.
"just look at what the Ukrainians have been able to do when it came to adapting planes and stuff to be launched by planes so that they could work together."
Except for the most part, they didn't.
It's a long and convoluted story but the USA came up with the adaptors for internal use decades ago and released that data/hardware to the Ukrainians
>” He does not realise it but hey, he's content to be Herr Trumpf's lapdog and suck his you know what when commanded.”
A position the majority of PMs dating back to Thatcher and probably earlier have taken. Looking forward it is clear Reform and the Conservatives want to deepen the lapdog status…
they wont even make it out of british airspace without requiring refuelling from AN ALLY.
It's not quite that bad. The F35A has a range of 2200km, with a combat radius of 1200km on internal fuel.
Since we can presume that a nuclear bombing run is a one-way trip and there will be nothing to come home to, this means the 2200km range applies. Potentially a bit further depending on the availability of external stores (I assume they'd only want to carry one nuke). It's been rumoured the Israelis have extended the range of their F35I. In principle you might be able to use drop tanks for the run across the Channel and drop them before you need stealth - although this all depends on whether you can drop the pylons too, since they'll knacker your signature.
From RAF Marham, they could strike Kaliningrad, Belarus or St Petersburg on internal fuel - but not Moscow. Since the B61 is a tactical weapon, this actually kinda works since they could strike military units massed on the Russian border (y'know, when Russia rebuilds it's ground forces to actually be able to stage a ground invasion - because they're not really making anything stick in Ukraine, nevermind thinking about opening a new front into Estonia or Latvia).
If you staged from eastern Germany, you could get to Moscow, Kazan or Volgograd, all of which would be smoking craters from strategic weapons by the time an F35 got there.
It is utterly pointless. A fleet of 12 will mean you are unlikely to have airframe availability of more than 2 or 4 at a time - once you put a pair in turn-around, a pair in shallow maintenance and a pair in deep maintenance. It's been suggested that they're cheaper to run per hour than the -B, which is good. But on 12 airframes it hardly matters. A dozen new Typhoons would be more useful for the RAF, although it sounds like the Americans don't want to let anyone certify B61 on Typhoon the way the Germans did on Tornado.
It also means we're running a parallel supply and logistics chain for an airframe which is almost (but not quite) entirely unlike the -B. Because all that concept of common parts turned out to be a bit hopes-and-dreams once you carved out interior space for the B's lift fan, and redesigned the C to cope with the forces involved in CATOBAR ops (completely different wing, strengthened undercarriage - which would be considered inefficiently heavy for a land-based fighter).
These jets will never attack anything further away than Cape Wrath, and they have adequate range for that.
A dozen Typhoons would be useless to an F-35 OCU. Pilots have to be trained, and that requires aircraft.
A dozen Typhoons would be useless to an F-35 OCU. Pilots have to be trained, and that requires aircraft.
I don't think you can count it as an OCU if they don't deliver pilots qualified on an operational type. It's basically an advanced fighter-tactics trainer sqn. To qualify pilots operationally on F35B, they need to train on F35B, because you can't teach hover or lift-fan management in an -A! And apparently they also won't be able to train for In-Flight-Refueling, being incompatible with our tankers (and even if the A-s did some refuel training with American tankers, pilots would still have to train on probe-and-drogue for the Bs). Unless we're going to get them fitted for drogues. I'd love to see the cost for that development split across a measly 12 aircraft.
If there's a shortage of airframes then buy more -Bs and train them on the actual aircraft they're going to fly operationally! This squadron is going to go down in infamy as the first OCU which didn't actually deliver operational pilots because they aren't equipped with an operational type.
However they arrange themselves, pilots will come in from Hawk, learn to fly the A (for no reason whatsoever) and then have to do a conversion to B. So the question is whether this OCU is going to run both types, or are pilots going to pass through two OCUs before they qualify on an operational type?
Our pilot training pipeline now looks like
Grob - Basic pilot training
Texan - Lead-in to jets
Hawk - Fast jet training
F35A - Partial OCU on a faster/lighter/irrelevant version of the jet they're eventually going to fly (but which can't refuel from UK tankers)
F35B - Finish your Operational Conversion in the actual aircraft you're going to fly
I'm not really sure what value fluffing around in an -A for a couple of hours of familiarisation is going to bring to the table. Yes, the -As are mechanically simpler and therefore a bit cheaper to run than the -Bs, but is it actually worth running your OCU with -A variants for the marginal £/hr saving (which will probably be swallowed up by the disproportionate logistics/supply/training cost of maintaining a single unit's worth of aircraft).
IIRC, in the book "Harrier Boys" it was mentioned that the OCU initially trained up Hunter pilots on hovering/transition on Westland Whirlwind helicopters (around 6 hours?), then, flown around the airfield in another aircraft, with instruction as to what needs to be done at different points on their flight - then it was into the Harrier, with instructor on the radio and chase aircraft following - initially conventional flying, then hovering/transitioning. The T.2. two seat trainer came well after the Harrier went into service. As for a simulator - the Spanish had theirs first, and RAF pilots had gone over for time on them - as ever, trust the MOD to get things round the wrong way
Jeez. It’s pretty f’ing idiotic buying anything like this from America right now. Either we develop it ourselves, buy from a part of the world that isn’t turning into a despotic banana republic - or we do without.
I mean, it’s not so long since we had Tornado. But shortsightedness saw us get rid of those without replacement. Start production of Tornado again? Maybe the Germans could be persuaded to sell ours back to us.
Tornado entered service in 1979/1980, and was retired from RAF service in 2019.
It is an old design and the airframes were knackered.
Production isn't going to be restarted since the production line doesn't exist, and the aircraft is obsolete.
If the UK sold any of our fleet to Germany, it would only have been as spares to keep their equally old and knackered fleet flying for a few more years.
The nuclear mission for the RAF Tornadoes was determined to be no longer required when WE177 was retired in the late 1990's, something like 20 years before Tornado was retired from RAF service.
The replacement for Tornado was Typhoon.
No shortsightedness.
Who was president in 2016 when Brexit happened.... hmm...
It could be worse, the UK could have the US lamestream media who are busy rooting for Iran. I do find it very strange that the same people cheering for Iran and whining about how mean the US is for bombing them are largely the same screeching that the US must destroy Russia cos of Ukraine.
"Plus it was Iran who attacked Israel"
FIFY.
You could equally argue that Ukraine were the initial aggressors in that conflict.
Biden, well, one of Biden's handlers, gave Ukraine the OK to use US munitions to strike into Russia. All those missiles and stuff that the US has 'sold' to Ukraine. The US has continually stated how important 'winning' in Ukraine is. If it wasn't for the US meddling it would have been a minor territory dispute but the state dept and CIA got involved.
Did you support Obama bombing Libya?
Russia has made no threats against the west or USA. The leadership in Iran has gone on repeatedly about its desire to wipe Israel off the face of the earth along with anyone who supports it.
minor territory dispute
So "minor" that Russia sent a huge column of tanks directly toward Kyiv on the first days. They weren't trying to take a little piece of Ukraine, they wanted the whole thing. And wouldn't have stopped there if they hadn't vastly overestimated the capability of their rusting Soviet era tanks.
So "minor" that Russia sent a huge column of tanks directly toward Kyiv on the first days. They weren't trying to take a little piece of Ukraine, they wanted the whole thing. And wouldn't have stopped there if they hadn't vastly overestimated the capability of their rusting Soviet era tanks.
Yep. Swallowed up Ukraine in 3 days, then would have been on the beaches of Calais in 5. Alternatively, Russia's 'full scale invasion' used maybe 1/5th of their forces and got Ukraine to agree to the Istanbul peace plan in a couple of weeks. Then Boris rode his pale horse to Kiev, Ukraine was persuaded to fight to the last Ukrainian, and it's now 20% smaller with much of NATO pretty much disarmed. Re-arming will be fine though because Euroclear are financial geniuses who can generate a trillion in interest from $2-300bn in Russian frozen funds.
The only country who has disarmed themselves in that war is Russia. They're in such bad shape that they're begging North Korea for help, and have been buying missiles and drones from Iran. I wonder if that supply is going to get cut off as Iran now sees a reason to rearm itself - and if they weren't trying for a nuke before they are for certain quadrupling down now because North Korea's (and Pakistan's) example shows having nuclear capability keeps you safe from invasion or wholesale bombing, and Libya's and Ukraine's example show why you should never ever give up your nukes or nuke program.
The only country who has disarmed themselves in that war is Russia. They're in such bad shape that they're begging North Korea for help, and have been buying missiles and drones from Iran.
Uhuh.. So it's been 28+ countries vs Russia with us scrabbling around to find tanks, artillery, ammunition etc to give, or sometimes sell to Ukraine. And we're out of stock. Meanwhile, Russia is apparently churning out 100+ new tanks a month and millions more artillery rounds than we can produce. Sure, it's traded some stuff from DPRK & Iran but is also now producing its own enhanced versions of Iranian drones and is churning those out by the thousands. And of course we've encouraged technology transfer, so DPRK and Iran can become more capable. Oh, and of course that other enemy we've been busily creating.. China. They have rather a lot of industrial capacity and haven't yet become fully involved in this conflict.
But you also demonstrate the problem with bad propaganda. If Russia really is in 'such bad shape', why are we committing to spend so much money? After all Russia's economy was in 'tatters' after the imposition of Ursula's 'shock and awe' sanctions.. And I think we're up to the 18th round now, and Russia is still advancing. Strange how they can do this when they're in such bad shape, and ran out of missiles over two years ago.
..because North Korea's (and Pakistan's) example shows having nuclear capability keeps you safe from invasion or wholesale bombing, and Libya's and Ukraine's example show why you should never ever give up your nukes or nuke program.
On that we can kind of agree, except they were never Ukraine's nukes, and Zelensky's statement that Ukraine would restart their weapons program at the Munich 'security' conference was one of the reasons the SMO started. Rather foolish to test a rather big Russian red line. But the DPRK and Pakistan are probably safe for now because nukes, and they don't have oil or gas. Iran, of course does, hence the need for regime change and getting their oil & gas production back under US control.
But then Iran also has the propaganda machine in full spin, churning out shades of Rumsfeld's 'Fortress of Evil' graphics-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cdjxy039ln8o
Interesting video clip embedded in that article. It shows the powah of the GBU! Or it shows a test penetrating a few meters of un-reinforced rock, with a few meters removed at the impact site. Then the GBU using a void-sensing fuze.. And graphics showing ventilation tunnels leading straight down. But there was another video from 1977 showing heroic pilots firing a missile straight down a vent, destroying that target. So bunker builders have long known to create voids to trigger void-sensing fuzes, and not to build vents without diversions..
The worst thing that Russia has done to themselves is destroyed their own future as a viable country
The population is down by 1/3 since 1990 and demographics look like an upside-down christmas tree. There are more 80yo women than 8yo girls
Taking ~1 million men out of that equation pretty much ensures that population sustainability is gone
This post has been deleted by its author
>"Plus it was Iran who attacked Israel"
Depends on your timeline, not everyone has the memory of a goldfish that the “genocidal death cult”(*) in Tel Aviv would like people to have…
I suggest the only reliable start date for the current conflict is 1948.
(*) Using definition given by David Mencer - (Israeli Government Spokesman for the National Public Diplomacy Directorate in the Office of the Prime Minister) to the BBC.
Personally I think it's the right decision. Back in the day, Thatcher had enough cash to fund one new front-line fighter. But two were on offer. One was the Warton canard delta air-superiority fighter, the other was the Kington twin-tail superharrier. Both had reached the full-scale mockup stage. She had to choose, and plumped for Warrton's EAP. Then, along comes the stealth + smarts era, the hole where the Harriers that won the Falklands used to be still hurts like hell, so we go for the smart'n'stealthy superharrier. Oh dear, now any serious front-line fighter needs stealth & smarts too, but ours is well out of date. What's on the table there for a quick refresher? The F-35 is a 6th-Gen beast, designed for the smarts era where its main role is expected to be to bumble around providing C2 to a semi-autonomous drone swarm, and things like that. But the -C is so woefully short of bumble-around capability that the -A becomes essential. As Kier Starmer is the best Tory prime minister we've had since Tony "My Place in History" Blair, the outcome is inevitable. Not the ideal plane for the job, but the only stopgap around unless and until the latest B.Ae toy, with pilot strictly optional, ever comes good.
… that Russia is poised to invade Western Europe, and intends to cross the Channel to Britain?
If so, how do they respond to the following?
1. What have we got that Russian's covets? Certainly not culture, so that leaves?
2. Where are Russia's manpower resources such that Western Europe and the UK can be conquered? That's assuming anyone would wish to protest their entry.
3. How would Russia maintain its position as an occupying force should various 'nationalists' seek to be troublesome?
Other potential enemy states - in the eyes of politicians owned by the armament industry - appear to include N. Korea, China, and Iran. Surely, even our stalwart defenders of 'freedom', 'democracy', and questionable 'Western values' don't imagine a land invasion by any of those? Perhaps, they fear having missiles lobbed in the direction of London? - bring it on, some might say. Missiles don't capture resources; they merely eradicate potential nuisances; yet, why would non-kakistocratic rulers of Britain, should such exist, seek to 'wind-up' distant foreigners?
The British Isles reside in a deep and wide natural moat. Land invasion is a fanciful worry. That is, unless combatants sporadically are sent on dingies in small groups, which our Royal Navy is incapable of apprehending. Anyway, our potential naval coastal defences prefer to cavort around Taiwan, playing war games with their dim witted allies. But, one might say, we have a splendid new aircraft carrier. However, it may be fit to take day-trippers on tours round the Isle of Wight, so long as it is accompanied by a fleet of rescue tugs, but little more. Sending the carrier into foreign waters risks two things. First, its sinking by forces hitherto thought of as inconsequential (e.g. Houthis), but who have access to the recently game-changing technologies of 'kamikaze drones' and hypersonic missiles. Carriers, seemingly unbeknownst to our self-aggrandising political so-called 'leaders' have gone the way of the Dreadnought (so, too, have tanks).
Second, the ship would be a floating public health hazard: reportedly, its plumbing cannot guarantee showers for matelots. Its presence on the high seas would, should one be downwind of it, be reminiscent of old-time 'slavers'.
Next, consider NATO. It is a ramshackle edifice of Babelian nature: not only is it multilingual, but also there is no unified weaponry, spares, ammunition, logistics, or military tradition. NATO is overseen by a bunch of third rate individuals (aka 'career politicians'), each of whom feels obliged to seek public attention by uttering dire threats about imaginary enemies. To cap that, NATO had sported a succession of low ability, and low integrity, Secretaries General. The most recent pair, spend their time at junkets proclaiming imminent danger from Russia, or wherever else comes to mind, and demanding the doubling of financial contributions from member states. Fittingly, Boris Johnson's name was mentioned when recently a candidate to replace Stoltenberg was sought; as matters turned out, the appointee is well suited to his sinecure.
NATO's much vaunted 'Article 5' is of illusionary import, as even its framers might have realised. During the 'Cold War', just maybe, member nations might have stood together in mutual 'sacrifice' of professional and conscripted manpower; that is because USA anticommunist propagana and fear-mongering had surpassed even Joseph Goebbels' brilliance. An attempt to revive mass fear inducement began during the Covid-19 pandemic and had success. This was carried forth into the NATO promoted Ukraine débâcle. It gained traction through the sterling efforts (in the UK) of the 77th Brigade, a host of other agencies such as the Atlantic Council, and overt censorship of dissident opinion by MSM. The Daily Telegraph is an outlet (one among others?) which resorted to 'shadow banning' (via its Canadian collaborator), I have solid proof; this is a throughly dishonest procedure because it fooled subscribers (the only people permited to comment) into belief they were getting the services they paid for. The online BBC did have the integrity to remove comments and to consider appeals; however, under one of my aliases I recently have succeeded in getting a total ban (so much for licence fee paying).
Anyway, the propoganda effort is unravelling. The most noticeable anti-Russia stalwarts (Trump having partially withdrawn) are Mr Starmer, le Macron, Ursulas von der Leyen, and their pet monkey Zelensky. Along their way, these and others, inadvertnely have succeeded in reversing globalisation and emancipating the 'Global South'.
Mr Starmer's foolish purchase of F-35s, not refuelable in the air by the RAF, and, unneeded for defending our islands, could be the dying gasp of a succession of almost indistinguishably inept, ideologically converged, and corrupt governments, set in sequence by Mr Blair. Perhaps, gathering pressure for electoral reform (i.e. introduction of proportional representation) will succeed, via independent candidates, in detaching 'career politicians' from their City of London provided troughs.
For the potential nuclear role, refuelling the F35As by UK tankers won't be necessary. It's a one-way mission. Refuelling is only necessary to exceed the maximum ferry range of the aircraft, which is only relevant for reaching deep into Russia, where refuelling would occur somewhere over central or Eastern Europe. That's more appropriately done by NATO tankers.
Keep in mind *when* these might be used: in the extremely-rare-but-just-conceivable case that 'escalate to de-escalate' could actually work but, more likely, shortly before we're all turned into radioactive ash.
We bought some foreign kit that doesn't work with our current kit. If you've worked in corporates for more than 5 mins it's obvious this has the stench of greasy palms, briefcases of unmarked notes and many late evenings spent in very expensive restaurants in the posh parts of major cities!
Aircraft that haven't been built yet aren't refuelling compatible with tankers RAF currently have - that's the essence of it.
Easy to frame it as "those clowns in the MoD don't know what they are doing" rather than something complex such as "what are the implications for how the RAF will work round it?"
Personally I can see it going one or more ways.
RAF gets boom type tanker capability allowing them to extend range of F-35As and interoperability with other NATO aircraft that do use it.
RAF get F-35As fitted with probe refuelling systems similar to those used on F-35Cs.
I see also that F-35s have been refuelled from unmanned aircraft (Boeing MQ-25) with drogue equipment
So, the RAF cannot refuel the 35A ?
Right.
But our NATO allies can ?
How ?
Wasn't one of the main points of NATO to have common platforms and to be able to share and use equipment ?
Perhaps our Radar will work in a different format, say Sinclair ZX, rather than Europe's Pascal ?
Thus we wouldn't be able to share our radar data with Europe !
Oh yes, that sounds perfectly sane.
However, if we have aircraft carriers, and airfields, how would they refuel the 35A if the refilling nozzle was different ?
Ah, tis ok. You'll be wanting the 'Premium' fighter fuel Mr Maverick!
I'd like to see the full reasoning behind this one. Delivery of nukes by aircraft doesn't seem the most efficient use of the money. Would ballistic missiles be more likely to reach the target? Especially developing hypersonic which you'd have thought would not be a monumental task for something coming downwards? And ... we can't refuel it without the septics. It feels like we're just giving money to US arms industry. I hope we're buying it for the other roles and the nukes is just Starmer posturing.
What happened to the 6th Gen aircraft we were supposed to be developing? Did we give up or was it always kite flying?
I'd like to see the full reasoning behind this one.
It's Starmer. Don't expect reason or rationale. But Daddy says 'give money!', so we are. Sort of. It's a target to divert money from social spending to defence.
Delivery of nukes by aircraft doesn't seem the most efficient use of the money. Would ballistic missiles be more likely to reach the target? Especially developing hypersonic which you'd have thought would not be a monumental task for something coming downwards?
Well, recent events have shown that to 'obliterate' deeply buried bunkers, you need really big bombs. So we could dust off designs for our Tallboy and Grand Slam WW2 versions of the GBU. But those also need a big aircraft, so we could also dust off our designs and make a Lancaster Mk2 to drop those. The US is kinda doing this with their B-21. But our potential enemies now have better intelligence about how effective NATO's current bunker busters are and can dig deeper.
Which was always the dilema around Iran's bunkers. GBUs might work, but if not, then there's always the option to go nuclear.. Which assorted neocons have been lobbying for, ie the use of tactical nukes is OK. So they argue that 'limited nuclear war' is just fine, because the fallout will just affect Europe or the Middle East and won't cross the Atlantic, or Pacific. Current ballistic missiles might not work. Again we've given potential enemies a lot of useful data about the effectiveness (or not) of our most modern air defence systems vs land, air and sea launched missiles. Israel shot down a lot, but some also got through, and both Israel and Ukraine demonstrated that hypersonic missiles are a wicked problem to solve. Especially when accompanied by drones and decoys to overwhelm defences.
So yup, hypersonic missiles would seem to be the way to go. Except then you need launch platforms that can't just launch slow moving Tomahawk-style cruise missiles. Which means making our own missiles and digging silos in Estonia, Germany, Poland, Ukraine (if it survives) or trucks that can move launchers around. But that's been one of Russia's 'red lines' regarding NATO expansion. And Russia demonstrated their objection to long-range missiles on their border with this-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oreshnik_(missile)
Eyewitnesses reported that 21 November attack on Dnipro, which included Oreshnik strike, triggered explosions lasting up to three hours.
Using a non-nuclear, possibly purely kinetic warhead against Pivdenmash's underground factories.. Which in shades of Fordow was either unsuccessful because most of the damage would have been underground.. But if there were three hours of secondaries, it rather suggests Russia hit something. And then there was excitement that drones can pop out from innocent looking shipping containers.. But then so can IRBMs, creating 'stealth' missile launchers. Which makes those rather hard to detect, especially if they might be suprise deck cargo loaded onto ghost ships.
Especially as we're busily creating enemies, who now will be more willing to share (and sell) their technology..
What happened to the 6th Gen aircraft we were supposed to be developing? Did we give up or was it always kite flying?
Hopefully that's still ongoing, ie GCAS/FCAP because it now makes even more sense for a Eurofighter Mk2. Especially given NATO and the EU has a rather unreliable partner that has happily waged economic warfare against it's allies.. But then as the old saying goes, the US doesn't have allies, only interests. Which is also one of those simple facts of life. US should put their own interests first, as should Europe.
"What happened to the 6th Gen aircraft we were supposed to be developing? Did we give up or was it always kite flying?"
Tempest (or GCAP if you prefer), Anglo-Italian-Japanese joint venture. Current programme is for an initial operational capability 2035 (driven by Japan's requirements; I understand that the UK and Italy were happy with a service entry date a bit later, around 2040).
Neither given up on, nor kite flying, but an active programme that is, as far as has been made pubic, progressing well and to schedule.
It's probably all part of a deal. Trump insists on 5% and we have no intention to pay it but bung US industry some money as a sweetener for when we don't hit the 5% target. The RAF gets more toys so they're happy. When if we were really interested in war fighting efficiency we'd be buying missiles, drones & counter measures.
As title, we might as well throw them in the sea as soon as they arrive. We've only bought them to keep the Orange Clown happy and chucking them immediately is probably the cheapest option.
But one assume it's the usual play these days and for our billions we've only bought a license to use them.
As always the US military and government are re-fighting the last war-but-one.
You want to drop a big bomb somewhere in the vague area of 1100 miles from your airfield? Buy a dozen F35A for $100 million each
Option B - design and build precision long-distance drones that drop 500kg of explosive 1m from your target. Or better, buy Ukrainian ones which have been tested in combat conditions. Cost? Much less than $100 million.
This post has been deleted by its author
So let’s make it 251 comments. What a thought. The 35 will cost a bit more than my highest aerospace mfg paystub ever., actually the by far far far. But I can get fuel for my car anywhere. What ass kissing foolery is this? It’s a scam pure and simple. There IS an idea of swarm tactics - you know 1 or 10 will get to the objective. But if your only ONE is out of gas, bye bye baby.
The unAustralian Howard tory regime (definitely NOT liberal" despite the party name) sucked up to Baby Bush by signing up to waste an absolute fortune on these garbage aircraft. The Indonesian's Russian jets would shoot them down. They would also burn a hole in the deck of our ships. Unlike Trudeau Labor failed to cancel the contract. Abbott et al then ordered more of them.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
