America bombs Iran.

[BoldonLad]

The RAF F35A nuclear launch option is beginning to make sense to me now. It is looking like the USAF are going to be storing Nuclear Weapons in the UK for the first time in nearly 20 years. You'd think there would be a lot more discussion about this. But even so, By committing the RAF to the F35A launch capability, it gives the UK Gov't reason to store them here in the first place, probably citing all manner of national security guff, when the fact is we already have a NATO lead deterrent, that is already operationally adequate and in near full control of the US President. It's all just political büllshit.

I wonder, will this give rise to Greenham Common type protests?

 

[briantrumpet]

I wonder, will this give rise to Greenham Common type protests?

I somewhat doubt it because I think that the whole concept of all things 'nuclear' being bad has receded somewhat from public consciousness, and CND hasn't got the same profile as it once had. Not to say there won't be some protests, but I doubt even that.

 

[Psamathe]

I wonder, will this give rise to Greenham Common type protests?

Back in those days protest was allowed. These days within 24 hours the protestors would be proscribed as terrorists and in a secret behind closed doors trial ... whilst our politicians would be "Can't comment on National Security" then "Can't comment on an ongoing court action".

Ian

 

[ebikeerwidnes]

The RAF F35A nuclear launch option is beginning to make sense to me now. It is looking like the USAF are going to be storing Nuclear Weapons in the UK for the first time in nearly 20 years. You'd think there would be a lot more discussion about this. But even so, By committing the RAF to the F35A launch capability, it gives the UK Gov't reason to store them here in the first place, probably citing all manner of national security guff, when the fact is we already have a NATO lead deterrent, that is already operationally adequate and in near full control of the US President. It's all just political büllshit.

Or - another way of looking at it

We convert 12 of the 36 F35s that we were going to buy to 35A ratehr than B

This means that the RAF get the planes they have always wanted - or 12 of them anyway - becuase the RAF are not bothered about some of their planes not being able to land on a carrier
but they are bothered about range and max weapons load

and these are cheaper

and they can carry US nuclear bomb but only if the US and UK agree to then being used

in other words - we pay a lot less for planes with greater capability for the RAF role - but which are not useable for the RN role

and in doing so we get a new role IF we ever agree to doing it

and maybe - just maybe - someone in Aldermaston and "other places" starts looking at how to get them to use own own bombs with big bangy thing in them if we ever need to

and in the meantime we have seemingly committed to a big thing
but in reality we have committed to only paying less for planes that would never have landed on a carrier anyway

and the saved money can go elsewhere
while "Dear DOnald" thinks we are doing what he wants



maybe

 

[HMS_Dave]

Or - another way of looking at it

We convert 12 of the 36 F35s that we were going to buy to 35A ratehr than B

This means that the RAF get the planes they have always wanted - or 12 of them anyway - becuase the RAF are not bothered about some of their planes not being able to land on a carrier
but they are bothered about range and max weapons load

and these are cheaper

and they can carry US nuclear bomb but only if the US and UK agree to then being used

in other words - we pay a lot less for planes with greater capability for the RAF role - but which are not useable for the RN role

and in doing so we get a new role IF we ever agree to doing it

and maybe - just maybe - someone in Aldermaston and "other places" starts looking at how to get them to use own own bombs with big bangy thing in them if we ever need to

and in the meantime we have seemingly committed to a big thing
but in reality we have committed to only paying less for planes that would never have landed on a carrier anyway

and the saved money can go elsewhere
while "Dear DOnald" thinks we are doing what he wants



maybe

That's what you get when you merge the capability with the RAF and the FAA. A Load of cobblers... Each fighting over what little scraps there are and when the carriers bugger off around the world, leaves the RAF short...

We had the solution in the bag 15 years ago. Instead of building two carriers, we build one, with cat and traps and buy the F35C variant or even the French Rafale's. They are better planes, cheaper and we could have landed French planes on it and the RN on theirs. There was even talk of going in half with the French on a second carrier and sharing its operational capacity. We would have committed to the F35A for the RAF and the F35B wouldn't have blighted both. But, the old heads didn't want this citing operational sovereignty and coverage. In all this time, our Carriers have been on two major round world deployments and so far, and one F35B fell off the ramps into the Mediterranean on the first and the other is in a mountain of bureaucracy in India with fears of secret technology being compromised on the second. Not brilliant to be fair.

The US nuclear bombs only have sovereign launch authority of the US president so the RAF having this is a bit nonsense to me and only really makes sense if the USAF are looking to put these bombs back onto UK soil, as all public consultation can be pretty much written off citing national security and Russia which is disappointing, putting it mildly...

But this is where we are. The RAF could be looking at furthering orders of the F35A's, but really 12 is a bit limp anyway. All that extra maintenance and supply lines for just a squadron is hardly value for money, so i wouldn't be surprised.

Then there's the sixth gen fighters. The project Tempest is really taking off, probably in part due to the Japanese enthusiasm for the project for which they are part of, so i can't imagine F35A's ever being bought in large numbers, especially as the Eurofighter is supposed to be in service until the 2040's. But then the MOD are suddenly finding themselves with cash they never thought they were going to get.

 

[HMS_Dave]

I wonder, will this give rise to Greenham Common type protests?

I might join them to be fair, there is no operational advantage to Britain having these nukes on it's soil, only hindrance. I think of the 1961 RAF Lakenheath near disaster when a USAF F100 carrying a 70 KT hydrogen bomb caught fire while the pilot was starting his engines. He thought it a great idea to jettison his fuel tanks, engulfing the plane and bomb in fire. The US have many many ways to strike any inch of the globe with a nuclear payload, be it ICBM's, Sea launched and even long range Jet Bombers as we have seen with Iran with its "bunker busters". Britain won't even have launch sovereignty. Maybe this will change, but even then, the need for them tenuous at best.

 

[CXRAndy]

Those who talk and those who do


View: https://x.com/DefiyantlyFree/status/1937988913282322845?t=xrTA-Uw3rjqXbNXt0UQVcg&s=19