Strategic Defence Review - 2025

[RunAndBreak]

In all seriousness, I think the reasoning within the MoD was that, since the last catapult-launched jet in the Navy was quite a while ago (Phantom?), they figured the Royal Navy had lost the necessary training systems and infrastructure. But they were still well-versed with the Harrier and the whole VTOL setup, so it made more sense to stick with what was already in place.

That was essentially the gist from a parliamentary committee briefing paper in late 2007.

Could’ve just asked the Americans, but oh well.

[RunAndBreak]

Got a problem with the navy???

lol.

The carriers are pretty pointless, one is currently sat in Singapore acting as a bar.

[Thunder]

One hell of an expensive training aircraft?? Makes no sense to me, can you realistically train to fly and fight in a A, then being asked to go do it for real in a B?

Surely the obvious option is to procure enough A’s to equip two Sqns and operate them as DCA frontline multi role units, training can be carried out in conjunction with another F-35A operator. Seems this is very much an effort by Labour to make it look like they’re expanding our forces but in reality they ain’t.

[KevinJ]

It'll free up more F-35Bs they would've used to train on with 207 for frontline ops, in every respect the A is identical to the B except for the STOVL trick obviously. Having a cheaper to operate version for training with it's nuclear back up role does make sense.

[Finty]

My enthusiasm may have been misplaced upon reading the above posts (regarding these being vice, not in addition to 35Bs) and not to mention the small matter of having no RAF tankers with probe and drogue!

All the RAF tankers are probe and drogue already aren’t they? Thought they were lacking the boom system?

Indeed, I was being thick, it’s the opposite! No RAF tankers with boom.

[Malcolm]

It's totally bonkers. I'm surprised they haven't said they'll paint them red and re-equip the red arrows with them.

So an OCU and 207Sqn (basically a training squadron) equipped with 'nuclear capable' F-35A's, but the front line squadrons still flying non nuclear capable F-35B's. I call BS on that.

There is no "nuclear backup role" unless the crews are regularly training in getting there and delivering them. Neither of those things happens on an OCU or training squadron - that's front line stuff.

[warthog81]

I wish we had just bought 150 to 200x F-35As for the RAF, enough for 3 or 4 combat wings. No F-35B and no Typhoon. With operating just one type we could have had a considerable cost saving.
We could have planned ahead and our tankers could have had booms from day one. It would have worked well considering how many other US types we now have that also require boom tankers for refuelling.

[Finty]

One hell of an expensive training aircraft?? Makes no sense to me, can you realistically train to fly and fight in a A, then being asked to go do it for real in a B?

Apparently so, the course is mostly the same, just an additional section at the end for STOVL stuff.

Surely the obvious option is to procure enough A’s to equip two Sqns and operate them as DCA frontline multi role units, training can be carried out in conjunction with another F-35A operator. Seems this is very much an effort by Labour to make it look like they’re expanding our forces but in reality they ain’t.

Indeed, I’m still surprised it’s only one unit and the existing OCU at that.

[Thunder]

Will it really free up a noticeable difference in a/c numbers, as they’re going to have to use the F-35A to train in the DCA role as well as the F-35B role, probably gain 3-4 frames on the flight line. Obviously they’re coming out with a system that works around the fact that the RAF have no manpower.

I was all for the carriers back in the day, but the reality is they’re a massive burden on the forces as a whole. Current deployment shows that, put to sea with half a complement and even struggled with that.

Yet another botch up in a long line of botch ups

[Finty]

So an OCU and 207Sqn (basically a training squadron) equipped with 'nuclear capable' F-35A's, but the front line squadrons still flying non nuclear capable F-35B's. I call BS on that.

There is no "nuclear backup role" unless the crews are regularly training in getting there and delivering them. Neither of those things happens on an OCU or training squadron - that's front line stuff.

207 sqn is the OCU, one and the same. That aside, I agree.

[Malcolm]

So an OCU and 207Sqn (basically a training squadron) equipped with 'nuclear capable' F-35A's, but the front line squadrons still flying non nuclear capable F-35B's. I call BS on that.

There is no "nuclear backup role" unless the crews are regularly training in getting there and delivering them. Neither of those things happens on an OCU or training squadron - that's front line stuff.

207 sqn is the OCU, one and the same.

Yes, poorly phrased, but the point stands.

[TommyC]

I read the 12 F35A purchase as our changed integrated and supportive nuclear weapons stance within NATO which PM Starmer has been setting the dialogue for since he became Prime Minister. It seems very sensible to align ourselves with the other NATO nuclear F35A squadrons rather than opt for F35B, Typhoon, FCAS delay to UK deterrent capability.

But what does our participating in the Nuclear Sharing agreement actually add to NATO? There are already 5 nations doing this (Belgium, Netherlands, Germany, Italy, US) and Poland is expected to become the 6th soon. It has no effect on the " UK deterrent capability" because the UK is not in control of the nukes - the US is. We will not be able to use them for sovereign defense.

The F-35A is undoubtedley a great asset, but it's the weapons it carries/drops that really matter. We can't even get Meteor and Brimstone integrated in a timely fashion, and this risks tying us into US only supplied weapons programs to the detriment of companies like MBDA.

I agree, but this F35A decision is more about NATO rather than UK nuclear deterrence. We will add to the geographical and squadron number of NATO deterrence.

Hopefully we as nation never get close to a scenario where we are looking to launch nukes as UK sovereign choice. Scenarios of past recent wars certainly don’t deserve such consideration, Falklands, Balkans, Iraq, Afghanistan. And if such decisions are obvious to not use nukes, then clearly nukes are not a deterrent to an aggressor under such circumstances.

[Finty]

207 sqn is the OCU, one and the same.

Yes, poorly phrased, but the point stands.

Aye. This must be a unique occurrence, a training squadron being assigned a nuclear role?

[Vulcanone]

They should carry dual national markings

Which ones? The F-35As or the F-35Bs.

I suggest you loo up what markings the RAF Germany Canberra B(I).6s operated solely by 213 Squadron and the Canberra B(I).8s operated by 16 59* and 88* Squadrons carried when they were armed with US 'Special Weapons'

* 59 and 88 were eventually re-numbered as 3 and 14 Squadrons

[Vulcanone]

Yes, poorly phrased, but the point stands.

Aye. This must be a unique occurrence, a training squadron being assigned a nuclear role?

At a guess 228 OCU taught the basics on the F-4 when RAF Germany flew the Phantom. Likewise 237 OCU with the Buccaneer, and 226 OCU with Jaguars. I assume the TWCU did have something in the training syllabus for RAF Germany Tornado squadrons.

[Vulcanone]

Yes, poorly phrased, but the point stands.

Aye. This must be a unique occurrence, a training squadron being assigned a nuclear role?

Remember the days when we had OCUs with Shadow Squadron status

[Malcolm]

Yes, poorly phrased, but the point stands.

Aye. This must be a unique occurrence, a training squadron being assigned a nuclear role?

I'm more cynical than that. I think it's "foot in the door" attempt by the RAF to get F-35A. Once there, they can then say they can take over the nuclear role, so there is no need for RN Trident replacement, and we can also get rid of the carriers. IMV politiciand are gullible enought to swallow that twaddle.

I really hope I'm wrong, but what happened with Shar/GR7/GR9 and the NSW doesn't fill me with confidence.

[Fighterfoto]

Disagree, this is about new technologies rendering the SSBNs vulnerable to detection. And in terms of carrier strike it’s neutral, whilst we buy less B models by using the A model for the OCU it frees up their B jets to the front line.

[KevinJ]

Remember the days when we had OCUs with Shadow Squadron status

I suggest they go with 207/74 Sqn so we can host a NTM again!

[Finty]

Aye. This must be a unique occurrence, a training squadron being assigned a nuclear role?

Remember the days when we had OCUs with Shadow Squadron status

That did occur to me but only after I posted, the old (R) designations.

Aye. This must be a unique occurrence, a training squadron being assigned a nuclear role?

At a guess 228 OCU taught the basics on the F-4 when RAF Germany flew the Phantom. Likewise 237 OCU with the Buccaneer, and 226 OCU with Jaguars. I assume the TWCU did have something in the training syllabus for RAF Germany Tornado squadrons.

Indeed but I could have explained it better perhaps, the idea of a training squadron being the sole squadron responsible for nukes whereas in the instances you’ve mentioned, they were all supporting frontline “ nuclear” squadrons .