It's not really an impossible problem to solve. It's also the only plane the UK can buy that would allow them to launch US made nuclear weapons, assuming that they would like to participate in the US nuclear sharing program in the future. Many of the nuclear sharing agreements the US have involves other countries using their planes and pilots, while the US provides the weapon and launch codes.
Such /r/redditmoment comments are unworthy of HN.
Donald Trump has consistently and forcefully argued that European NATO members must significantly increase their defense spending. He has long criticized European nations for not contributing enough to their own defense and relying too heavily on the United States.
Why would you do this if you're a Russian asset..?
Yet look at the current NATO spending review:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2025/jun/25/nato-dona...
Looks like unity to me...
Framing this long-term strategic choice as mere European "freeloading" is historical malpractice - and straight-up disinformation. It's the kind of reductionist narrative that ignores why NATO exists, forgets the U.S. benefits (forward bases, arms sales, influence), and erases the fact that Europe did gradually ramp up spending - until Trump turned alliance politics into a shakedown operation.
Trump's behaviour - threatening Article 5, calling NATO obsolete, encouraging Russia to do "whatever the hell they want" to non-payers - isn't tough love. It's textbook Kremlin strategy: undermine trust, fracture alliances, weaken deterrence, then pretend it's just "common sense".
The "unity" you're applauding is what happens when your supposed ally holds a lit match over the fuel tank and everyone else finally realises they're on their own. This isn't thanks to Trump - it's a survival reflex against him.
Undermining NATO's core guarantee, parroting Russian talking points, and daring Moscow to test the alliance wasn't tough negotiation - it was sabotage.
This week’s NATO summit will be all about placating Donald Trump https://www.economist.com/europe/2025/06/19/this-weeks-nato-...
At a tricky NATO summit, a Trumpian meltdown is averted https://www.economist.com/europe/2025/06/25/at-a-tricky-nato...
I find the idea that our nuclear deterrent depends on American missiles we can't produce ourselves concerning with isolationism being a recurring factor with American politics, sure Trump doesn't seem to particularly dislike us but Vance clearly sees us with open contempt given his comments about our forces. We're far too geographically close to Russia for us to depend on anyone but ourselves in my opinion.
I don't think we're in a timeline in which NATO's stability should be counted on for such critical things like refuelling your own planes...
Airbus makes the stupid tankers for the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A330_MRTT it's not a problem.
Edit: the US cancelled the Airbus program, but they still can make the boom operated tankers.
This is the entire point of NATO, complete interoperability between forces. To work as one cohesive force.
We're still stable, if we're not then it's already over.
How is it interoperable if you cannot refuel your own planes ? Sounds like the opposite of interoperability to me
It seems like the worst of all worlds to me. After a limited nuclear exchange, e.g. Manchester and Minsk, the glorious leaders of the U.S. and Russia will have second thoughts and only the vassal states will have been hit. They'll then make peace and nominate each other for the Nobel Peace Prize.
I guarantee you the Balkans countries that joined NATO would LOVE to have that problem instead of the current problems they have.
I.e. the UK is paying to follow the orders of the US President.
"The British government insists the warhead is indigenously designed, but analysts including Hans M. Kristensen with the Federation of American Scientists believe that it is largely based on the US W76 design"
There appears to be a new design in the works at the moment called "Astraea"
It's been widely reported that these aircraft will only be able to use US nuclear munitions, and that will require US permission.
God forbid they ever be used, of course, but it seems like a weird choice, especially when the UK is apparently able to build warheads for trident, and is allegedly able to operate that system without US oversight (though of course with US ballistic missiles as the carrier...)
UK could launch it's nuclear program, it has the scientific background and infrastructure, but surely they wouldn't have a certified, tested weapon within 5 years.
Maybe UK could buy them from France - but I don't think France ever exported their nukes, and if they would even consider it. How would it be launched? They have air-launched missiles, presumably only working with French jets, and cruise missiles, which IIRC are not very long range.
Who else is there? India? Pakistan? Israel? North Korea? Hard to imagine a sale from either of these countries.
As in the other thread (that I see you've now seen) the UK does have an active nuclear weapons program, with an in-progress updated design. It's true that it would need a smaller 'tactical' warhead design for the use-case we're talking about so it would take some time.
> How would it be launched?
I have no idea, we have certainly reached beyond my competence to hold an opinion here :)
It just feels like an odd choice at the current time, to crow about a new capability, but reveal another country is going to hold the keys. especially when the UK does have an active nuclear program. :shrug:
I think it does not and this is just pandering to the US.
My armchair strategist view doesn't extend as far as knowing if haste is advised or not. I'm curious why you think specifically there is no rush.
Along the same line, during the Cold War Sweden was literally facing the Warsaw Pact and yet stayed out of NATO. Now it is surrounded with friends and needs to join NATO.
I am just old enough to remember the end of the Cold War and the fall of it all. To me it is very difficult to consider that the situation now is riskier than then.
A reasonable conclusion is that we are being led up the garden path...
Russia has a stockpile of nukes for defense because they are worried of invasion (history has shown this is warranted). But they know that the military might of the US and NATO would obliterate their conventional forces.
My theory is that there has always been push-back against an EU power-grab to full "statehood" and involvement in military matters, and that this is a pretext to "manufacture consent" in European public opinion.
Looks like only Spain is the smart one in defence spending and hasn't bought the "Russians will invade europe despite being stymied 2 years in eastern Ukraine" coolaid.
https://web.archive.org/web/20120818131239/http://www.dodbuz...
Sure we have BAE systems, Babcock and Rolls Royce, but none of these companies can produce a whole weapon/plane/tank by themselves, without needing another 100 companies to supply components around the world.
The same goes with our European friends across the water; to make the Eurofighter Typhoon required hundreds of companies to collaborate across the UK/EU.
We need a bit more independence, more garden shed industry and localised companies.
The UK has a lot of pioneering knowledge and continues to make breakthroughs but it would be better if we could be a bit more selfish and make our own stuff with our own supply chain.
To those that argue, "we live in a global world", "everything is more complex now", "UK defence can't make everything" - are you so sure of that?
Just an example - the Spitfire was wholly made in the UK in the 1940s with 200 companies subcontracted from big cities to small towns across the country.
Brexit wasn't enough for you?
Just look at how Macron is behaving right now trying to promote D'Assault Aerospace over his European counterparts.
Do you write tightly coupled code?
I try not to, but I also try to avoid NIH.
You don’t cut off the umbilical cord until after taking breaths on your own. Get the order wrong, and you risk suffocating yourself before you figure out how to breathe.
Anyone making the “cut the umbilical” argument needs to prove to all of the listeners that you know what NATO provides your military before you sever interoperability with NATO.
The core problem with the UK is they chose not to run US-sized super carriers. UK only has shorter carriers which have ramps instead of catapults. UK carrier-based aircraft need VTOL to carry a decent payload/fuel load, which means the US Navy variant of the F-35 (requires a catapult) is not a candidate, only the US Marines variant (has VTOL drivetrain). This isn’t a sufficient reason to either leave NATO or source all military weapons domestically (which they can’t currently do).
Instead, UK carriers depend on VTOL aircraft, which reduces the selection of fixed wing to select from.
That would require reindustrialising, which while possible would require a complete reorganisation of UK society and accepting a much lower financial standard (financially, at least) of living as the workforce moves to manual labour from services.
> The UK has a lot of pioneering knowledge and continues to make breakthroughs but it would be better if we could be a bit more selfish and make our own stuff with our own supply chain.
This is just exceptionalist nonsense. The UK has neither the industrial expertise nor experience to rearm domestically.
No, you are writing nonsense -
Here is a non-exhaustive list of modern (80s - current era breakthroughs which are British)
- Chohbam composite tank armour (the best in the world)
- Dragonfire Laser
- Rapier AA missile, now being replaced by SkySabre
- Accuracy International firearms (best sniper rifles in the world)
- Rolls Royce jet engines
- Naval Sonar and Radar systems
I could go on
Chobham is from the '60s, but the UK cannot manufacture Chobham or the current incarnation Epsom independently.
> Dragonfire Laser
Developed by MBDA UK (a subsidiary of MBDA, owned by Airbus, BAE, and Leonardo) and QinetiQ. It also cannot be manufactured independently by the UK.
> SkySabre
MBDA again, also cannot be manufactured independently by the UK.
> Accuracy International firearms (best sniper rifles in the world)
Cannot be manufactured independently by the UK. Not even the barrels nor the steel to produce them, both of which are imported.
> Rolls Royce jet engines
Cannot be manufactured independently by the UK, which does not even manufacture most of the parts in the UK.
> I could go on
You could, and you'd continue to prove my point. The UK can partly design and manage projects (the services sector) and can assemble some items from parts mostly imported and almost exclusively using overseas inputs.
I think it's also telling that majority of all the items mentioned armour, from composite armour to Trent turbofans are already manufactured overseas and outside the UK
China, Russia (gotten lean and mean from Ukraine war) are going to outpace us.
You seem to be "ok" with this, but I think that is apathy and must be corrected for our national standing, otherwise we will be laughed at and outcompeted.
What good is designing a processor if we can make the silicon itself?
Not sure that holds up:
- Manufacturing: £785/week average earnings (Apr 2025) https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwor...
- Services: £708/week average earnings (Apr 2025) https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwor...
This is the 21st century — people aren’t running around soot-covered factories anymore.
Modern industry is about designing, building, and maintaining complex hardware and software systems, often with a big dose of automation.
It’s more likely you’re managing robots than shoveling coal.
The UK going alone on military equipment:
- loses out on comparative advantages
- needs to make redundant capital outlays
- loses allied buffer countries
- can’t maintain their own nuclear weapons (the uranium wasn’t sourced from Wales, ya know…)
- needs to spend MUCH more than the average NATO member country (military spending as a percentage of GDP)
- it’s not like the UK government budgets are overflowing with surplus to spend.Not the best example given the UK was a manufacturing powerhouse back then. We can't even build railways anymore. Even a lot of key infrastructure is contracted out to companies in other countries these days.
I also remember when the Scottish government tried to support Scottish shipbuilding by contracting the construction of some ferries to the single local bidder, Ferguson Marine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_ferry_fiasco
Garden shed industry gets you garden shed solutions. See the previous discussion about Ukranian cheap drones with limited effectiveness. It takes globalization to build an iPhone, and the larger your defence consortium the more advanced a solution you can build.
In a war or pre-war scenario the fat would be trimmed and we would be come lean and mean, as there is no room for major failures.
This is magical thinking. The bureaucracy doesn’t get more efficient for no reason. Usually it involves something like war time powers, and that means the rest of the economy gets strangled to support the building of weapons.
I think the word "selfish" here is doing a disservice to your argument. Nothing selfish about trying to achieve self-reliance. It annoys that even a lot of seemingly simple software used in the NHS relies on American SaaS companies.
The US already created 3 variants of a 6th gen fighter available to all of NATO and some other countries. AFAIK, the UK hasn’t even built a 4th generation fighter, something EuroFighter, Dassault, and Saab have done (in Europe) and the US has done 4 times over (later variants of F-15, F-16, F-18, and all F-22s).
This is true of anything that is sufficiently complicated. Apple designs products, but doesn’t manufacture most of the parts directly. They contract with specialized suppliers.
The Spitfire was created not long after the peak of British power. There has been A LOT of austerity since. The country can’t afford to increase military expenditure enough to onshore all weapons development, especially because (1) they aren’t at war and (2) the Spitfire was only as complicated as a car in the 1970s. A 5th generation fighter (like the F-35) or a 4.5th generation fighter (feature parity with several US and Euro fighters) would be 10x-50x more complexity. There is nothing gained by spending the extra money.
Additionally they also found out that the Patriot missile system they purchased around the same time (which hasn't been delivered yet) is "not the latest version" and not compatible with other systems meaning the price is not the price that was agreed upon.
We also get fucked by the fact that the conversion rate (USD to CHF) IS fixed at the rate from 4 years ago which is way worse than today.
Also no one is talking about the 15 Billion that the F35 maintenance is "estimated" to cost for the first 5 years.
Switzerland has no alternative, no other plane can be delivered in the time frame needed and the F35 is already late.
Many are very pissed rightly so at what the people responsible for this as such issues were pointed out back then [3]. Not surprisingly many of them left their jobs earlier this year.
Best part was that the people in charge back then claimed they had to accept the offer now (before a initiative vote on the plane) or we would not get this "deal" of a price as the offer from Lockheed would expire before the vote.
And of course: the contract is secret...
[1] https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/various/f-35-costs-were-never-f...
[2] https://www.blick.ch/politik/deutsche-zahlen-fuer-f35-fast-d...
[3] https://www.blick.ch/politik/krach-um-kampfjet-f-35a-chef-de...
Not ideal but seems like a reasonable compromise to me given that any scenario where UK is nuking anyone will presumably have European mainland buy in. i.e. could refuel there on the way to where you're going.
In any case seems unlikely that the UK would ever deploy nukes far away. UK is a regional power and has nuclear missile subs anyway for further out if needed.
It's not clear why. Official reason is that it ran low on fuel (a reason that's not been taken seriously).
Britain has rejected India's offer of a hangar. So it's been sitting there in the open since it landed.
https://www.indiatoday.in/amp/india/story/british-f35-jet-st...
exe34•3h ago
neepi•3h ago
stoobs•3h ago
postingawayonhn•3h ago
bilekas•3h ago
interesting tests in dogfighting were done at least : https://www.businessinsider.com/nato-pilots-break-down-f-35-...
Now will dogfighting matter? Who knows, but the EU certainly has different priotities.
preisschild•2h ago
What do you mean "for europe"? Many European NATO members are buying stealth F-35s because for them stealth is a priority.
> FCAS, but there where delays, which is always the case.
The entry of FCAS into service is expected in 2040 lmao, definitely not "at present" like OP said.
Also the UK is a member of the competing GCAP (Global Combat Air Programme) project
> Now will dogfighting matter
No. Of course not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Combat_Air_Programme
bilekas•2h ago
Europe doesn't prioritize stealth because Europe uses it's airforce primarily as response and defense. Being able to take down targets long before ever noticed is not in Europe's playbook right now, when it becomes required, that's where NATO comes in.
Individual countries buying is their own thing.
> The entry of FCAS into service is expected in 2040 lmao, definitely not "at present" like OP said.
Yes, these things take time..
Point is the Eurofighter's fill a role, to enrich all the ariforces. It's not a competition between the USAF and European, we collaborate, unless we're in another war, these days who knows.
> No. Of course not.
I think if Ukraine has showed anything, it's that definite assertions like that are risky.
_djo_•3h ago
The main reason for getting 12 F-35As is for the nuclear strike role and for cheaper operational conversion training for F-35B aircrew. They're not going to do much else, so the inability to refuel from RAF tankers isn't a huge dealbreaker.
pjbster•3h ago
Y_Y•3h ago
bilekas•3h ago
> The Eurofighter’s European collaboration model distributes manufacturing and support across partner nations, and this model lowers acquisition costs for the initial adopters. However, the Typhoon's maintenance requirements, especially for its EJ200 engines, can be complex for operators outside Europe, which has hindered export sales.
Given the UK has left the EU, I wonder if that would effect their maintenance costs and availablity, although I would assume something could be worked out given they're in NATO!
rgblambda•3h ago
bilekas•2h ago
Well it's not really when you consider services and materials need to leave the EU which incurs taxes.
And as for the Gulf states, who knows but they usually have enough money to not care much.
rgblambda•2h ago
And if it were the case, then Eurofighter isn't independent of the UK either, as it's one of the main stakeholders and manufacturers.
I think your previous comment explains it better. The maintenance and logistical complexities are being experienced by countries that weren't initial adopters. The UK remains an initial adopter and manufacturer for Eurofighter.