By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The UK’s Strategic Defence Review recommends a shift in the Royal Air Force’s fighter jet fleet to include both F-35B and F-35A variants, driven by cost-effectiveness and potential future requirements. This decision, confirmed by the Defence Minister, marks a departure from the previous focus solely on the F-35B. The inclusion of the F-35A is strongly linked to the UK’s potential increased participation in NATO’s nuclear sharing mission, mirroring Germany’s recent adoption of the F-35A for this purpose. Ongoing discussions with the US and NATO regarding this enhanced role are underway.
Read the original article here
The UK’s confirmation of its intention to purchase F-35A fighter jets for a NATO nuclear strike role presents a complex picture, brimming with both strategic implications and potential pitfalls. This decision, at first glance, seems to represent a significant shift in the UK’s nuclear posture, moving away from its long-standing reliance on submarine-launched ballistic missiles.
The acquisition of the F-35A, the conventional take-off and landing variant, marks a departure from the previously favored F-35B, the short take-off and vertical landing model. This shift raises questions regarding the overall coherence of UK defence strategy, especially considering past indecision and changes in approach. The rationale behind this change, however, might be more strategic than initially apparent. The F-35A boasts superior capabilities compared to the F-35B, offering enhanced range, payload, and overall performance. This superior capability could well justify the shift, particularly in the context of a nuclear strike role where these factors are paramount.
However, this decision necessitates a careful examination of potential drawbacks. The introduction of a mixed fleet of F-35As and F-35Bs will undoubtedly increase maintenance costs and logistical complexities. This increased complexity needs to be weighed against the benefits offered by the F-35A’s enhanced capabilities. It is crucial that the acquisition of the F-35As does not come at the expense of other vital defense programs, like the Tempest Future Combat Air System. A reduction in funding for such programs would be a severe setback for UK defense capabilities.
Furthermore, the selection of the F-35A for a nuclear delivery role raises concerns about dependence on the United States. While the UK is a tier-one partner in the F-35 program, retaining full control over software and partially over spare parts, it still relies heavily on US technology and cooperation. This raises questions about the long-term reliability and autonomy of the UK’s nuclear deterrent, particularly in the face of potential political shifts or strained international relations. The UK’s history of changing its plans, from initial consideration of CATOBAR/F35C to a ski-jump/F35B approach only to return to considering the A model, highlights a lack of long-term vision that could undermine defence.
The decision also compels a review of the UK’s nuclear doctrine. The introduction of an air-delivered nuclear weapon system requires significant adjustments to operational strategies, command and control structures, and target selection processes. This is a far cry from the UK’s reliance on submarine-based systems for several decades. The ramifications of such a substantial change to the nuclear arsenal and the doctrine surrounding it are far-reaching and require meticulous planning.
Another crucial aspect of the debate is the cost-effectiveness of this decision. Some argue that it would have been more economical to adapt existing Typhoon fighters for the nuclear role, especially considering their familiarity and availability within the RAF. The choice of the F-35A must be proven justifiable against the considerable cost of acquisition, maintenance and training. This is especially true when viewed through the prism of other options available to the UK. While other aircraft may have been considered, the F-35A’s superior capabilities and stealth technology make it the most suitable option for this particular mission.
Considering alternatives like the Gripen fighter jet from Sweden is appealing from the viewpoint of national independence, however, the Gripen lacks the stealth capabilities and integrated systems of the F-35A, rendering it less effective for a nuclear strike role. Furthermore, Sweden’s political stance on nuclear weapons could potentially create obstacles to its use in this capacity. The choice of F-35A is thus seen as logical, as the UK is already deeply invested in the platform’s development and operation, with considerable expertise already available to maintain the fleet.
In conclusion, the UK’s decision to acquire F-35A fighter jets for a NATO nuclear strike role presents a complex array of advantages and disadvantages. While the enhanced capabilities of the F-35A offer significant strategic benefits, the increased costs, logistical challenges, and continued reliance on US technology demand careful consideration. The long-term implications of this decision are considerable, impacting both the UK’s independent nuclear capability and its position within NATO’s broader nuclear sharing framework. Only through a clear and transparent accounting of the factors driving this decision can concerns regarding capability, cost-effectiveness, and dependence on foreign systems be successfully addressed.