UK to buy nuclear-capable F-35As that can't be refueled from RAF tankers
- Reference: 1750929249
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2025/06/26/uk_f_35a_refuel_hitch/
- Source link:
Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced the move at a NATO summit today, which will see the government buy "at least a dozen" of the dual-capable aircraft, meaning they can carry both nuclear and conventional weapons.
Currently, the UK has about 37 F-35B fighters, which are the version capable of short take-off and vertical landings (STOVL) in the manner of the retired Harrier. These are able to operate from the Royal Navy's pair of aircraft carriers, and form a joint force shared between the two services.
[1]
The F-35A is a version designed for conventional take-off and landing from a runway, and is certified to carry the American B61 tactical nuclear bomb, which the F-35B is not.
[2]
[3]
It can also carry more fuel than the F-35B, which has space taken up by an internal lift fan, giving it a longer range of 1,200 miles/2,200 km compared to 900 miles/1,667 km for the "B" model.
The purchase reintroduces a nuclear role for the RAF, which during the Cold War was capable of deploying the British-designed WE 177 tactical nuke from the swing-wing Tornado jet – now also retired. "Tactical" refers to weapons intended for battlefield use.
[4]
In a statement, the Ministry of Defence (MoD) said the UK will deploy the new jets as part of NATO's nuclear Dual Capable Aircraft mission, strengthening the alliance's nuclear deterrent.
"In an era of radical uncertainty we can no longer take peace for granted, which is why my government is investing in our national security, ensuring our Armed Forces have the equipment they need and communities up and down the country reap the benefits from our defence dividend," Starmer commented.
The plans have already faced criticism, as the original strategy for Britain's F-35 fleet was that it would consist entirely of F-35B aircraft, so that any of them could be operated from the carriers if necessary. The dozen F-35As will not be capable of this.
[5]
The new jets will come as part of the next procurement package from defense firm Lockheed Martin, which will deliver 12 F-35As rather than 12 F-35Bs, according to the announcement.
[6]
United States Air Force F-35A Lightning II jets that arrived at RAF Marham on 3 September 2024, along with airfield support equipment, for the start of Exercise Agile Shield (click to enlarge) – Pic: Crown Copyright
We asked the MoD whether these would be part of the total 138 it originally planned to buy over the lifetime of the program, or if they were an additional 12 aircraft. However, instead of answering our questions, a spokesperson pointed us to a Parliamentary debate where Maria Eagle, Minister of State, Ministry of Defence, was speaking regarding the procurement.
Eagle also failed to answer, telling James Cartlidge MP only that the next tranche would comprise both the 12 F-35As along with another 15 F-35Bs.
"We're hopeful these aircraft will start delivering before the end of the decade," she said.
[7]Military-tech upstart Anduril pushes further into NATO with German arms maker deal
[8]UK CyberEM Command to spearhead new era of armed conflict
[9]The UK wants you to sign up for £1B cyber defense force
[10]UK Ministry of Defence is spending less with US biz, and more with Europeans
In response to a later request for clarification, Eagle said: "We are committed to buying 138 F-35s. This is part of the next tranche of F-35s, and we've substituted 12 F-35 A for what would have been 12 F-35B, so in that sense, Mr. Speaker, this is a change to the mix."
Another issue with this version of the F-35 is that it is not compatible with British refueling aircraft. The UK pioneered the probe-and-drogue system, whereby a tanker reels out a hose behind it, and the refueling aircraft maneuvers up so that its probe connects. The F-35A, which was designed for the US Air Force, has a receptacle on its fuselage into which the tanker delivers fuel using a rigid boom.
Eagle's answer to this was that other NATO countries would be able to refuel the RAF's F-35A fighters, which of course there will be absolutely no problem with during a period of crisis or conflict.
Some defense experts argue that the purchase of these 12 aircraft would at least give a boost to the RAF's long-range strike force, but the air force itself revealed plans to use the F-35As [11]primarily for training purposes , meaning that carrying nuclear weapons will only be a secondary role.
"Day-to-day, the F-35As will be used in a training role on 207 Squadron, the Operational Conversion Unit (OCU). As the F-35A carries more fuel than the F-35B variant, it can stay airborne for longer, extending the available training time in each sortie for student pilots," the announcement says.
We asked the MoD if this purchase meant that the UK would be procuring the B61 nuclear bomb from the US (assuming America grants approval for transfer), or if the weapons would come from a shared NATO stockpile. However, the MoD declined to answer, nor would it answer whether there were plans for the F-35A to carry other nuclear weapons, such as a stand-off or cruise missile.
Critics have said the F-35A procurement is simply a stopgap gesture until the RAF can field its next-generation fighter, sometime in the next decade. Known in the UK by the [12]Tempest codename, this is being developed jointly with Japan and Italy and is expected to have a much greater operational range than current British aircraft, and carry a much larger payload. ®
Get our [13]Tech Resources
[1] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_security/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2aF0aNOwuY-ltjAXI9dcnTwAAAtY&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[2] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_security/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44aF0aNOwuY-ltjAXI9dcnTwAAAtY&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[3] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_security/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33aF0aNOwuY-ltjAXI9dcnTwAAAtY&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_security/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44aF0aNOwuY-ltjAXI9dcnTwAAAtY&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[5] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_security/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33aF0aNOwuY-ltjAXI9dcnTwAAAtY&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[6] https://regmedia.co.uk/2025/06/26/f-35a.jpg
[7] https://www.theregister.com/2025/06/18/anduril_rheinmetall_drones/
[8] https://www.theregister.com/2025/06/04/uk_cyberem_command_details/
[9] https://www.theregister.com/2025/05/30/uk_cyber_defense/
[10] https://www.theregister.com/2025/05/10/uk_ministry_of_defence_drops_us_spending/
[11] https://www.raf.mod.uk/news/articles/raf-f-35a-marks-a-significant-step-in-delivering-a-more-lethal-integrated-force-and-joining-nato-nuclear-mission/
[12] https://www.theregister.com/2023/12/18/uk_japan_italy_fighter_deal/
[13] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Re: "In an era of radical uncertainty"
I'm pretty sure we will be paying for these crappy jets, for a VERY long time.
This is Sir Beer Korma sucking up to the US. It matters little who occupies the WH.
Re: "In an era of radical uncertainty"
Looks like you can control the US as long as you have Epstein tapes. No need for nuclear weapons.
When the Buccaneer jet carried nuclear bombs in the 1960's, one way practised of avoiding the sub-sonic jet being downed by the Russian's, was to drop a nuke behind the Buccaneer, otherwise known as "dropping your knickers" in RAF slang :-)
Close, but "knickers" or "BIF" (bomb in face) means dropping any free-fall ordinance into the chasing aircraft's path, not nukes in particular.
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.
https://www.grammarly.com/commonly-confused-words/ordinance-vs-ordnance
Though I like your idea - Shouting "Bugger off, Ivan!" might work just as well ;-)
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's a slightly perplexing purchase."
It is an utterly BONKERS purchase. Yet another stupid move from a very stupid government.
My understanding is that they would carry US-owned nukes.
This would be to obey the letter (if not the spirit) of the law regarding the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
US has it's finger on the Kill Switch.
There, I've said it.
Who TF thinks this is a good idea? Kier is an idiot!
"In an era of radical uncertainty"
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.