Il Regno Unito conferma di acquistare F-35A per il ruolo di sciopero nucleare della NATO

[From the horse’s mouth](https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2025-06-03/56927):

> The Strategic Defence Review does not recommend reductions in fast jets for the RAF, but it confirms the Government’s commitment to GCAP, to upgrade Typhoons and no reductions in number as there is a shift to a new mix of F35sBs and F35As. The Government is committed to upgrading Typhoons and driving exports of Typhoons abroad.

There are upsides and downsides to this decision, but full knowledge of the downsides really depends on the ramifications. A mixed fleet will always involve extra maintenance costs, but those might be offset by benefits elsewhere from the A model. The balance depends on how this decision impacts other decisions. If we now get less than the 72 F-35B’s for the Carrier air wing then it’s a colossally shit decision that will actively harm UK defence. If it results in a cut to GCAP funding then it’s a colosally shit decision that will actively harm UK defence. If GCAP funding isn’t affected and we get the full set of 72 for the Fleet Air Arm plus extra F-35A for the RAF…ok, not such a bad thing. If this acquisition of F-35A has the effect of persuading the government to also introduce [flying boom](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerial_refueling#Flying_boom) to the Voyager fleet then I’ll go ahead and call this an outright good thing – at the moment because the RAF’s tankers exclusively have [probe and drogue](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerial_refueling#Probe-and-drogue) systems they can’t refuel the RAF’s Poseidon or Wedgetail or Rivet Joint since they need booms like F-35A.

As for the intended role; an air delivered nuclear weapon is something I strongly believe that the UK needs and F-35 is the obvious platform to deliver it, but if all we’re doing is joining the existing NATO nuclear sharing arrangements then I think that that’s pointless. Without development of a British weapon to fill the role I don’t see that we’re adding anything of particular value to NATO by this.

Very shortsighted move for many reasons

The B61 is a gravity bomb that places the strike aircraft very close to the target during the attack, make it highly at risk to air defence. This essentially negates any advantages the F-35 might have from it’s stealth characteristics against other aircraft.

The F-35A does not have the range to reach our most likely targets from mainland Britain and so would require either forward basing or dedication of limited aerial refueling assets to complete the mission.  Again adding drop tanks to try and mitigate this completely negates any supposed F-35 advantages.

The F-35 does not currently use the standard weapons carried by other RAF aircraft, as the Americans are stalling heavily on integrating European and British weapons on the aircraft. This is unlikely to change as it would cut into US defence sales.

We would be doubling down on our nuclear deterrent being reliant on US suppliers, and purchasing high value items from a United Sates that seems determined to abandon us geostrategically.

The right move would have been to licence produce ASMP nuclear cruise missiles from the French, rate them for carrying on Typhoon, and then collaborate with the French to arrange a dual key system for our European allies. The Germans are currently developing a twin seat electronic warfare variant of the Typhoon, which would be an excellent base for a twin seat Strike Typhoon, which the Germans themselves might be persuaded to adopt instead of their own F-35 order.

Why would buying an American plane seem like a good idea since the traitorous trump is in power . If it goes badly in America these planes won’t be worth shit

I thought the UK were developing a new plane with Japan?

3.5% of gdp for defence or 3.5% of gdp for us defence contractors who will pull supply if we do anything they don’t like (including opposing Russia too much)?