British aircraft nukes again?

[Rule of cool]

I recently read that France is considering deploying some nuclear capable Rafales to Germany, to strengthen deterrence further east. I thought this was interesting enough and it might be useful if the British did it as well, but of course they retired their aircraft nukes in 1998 and now only have Trident., which aren't a very visible deterrent.

Given the changing geopolitics could Britain give the RAF a nuclear capability again? If so what would it be, a freefall bomb, maybe something with a touch more range?

 

[zen]

Obviously it's possible to remanufacture WE.177, though whether that's a good idea is another thing.

Fitting Storm Shadow maybe possible.

A warhead to fit ASMP and purchase of the missile from France might be a way forward.

Japan might license their supersonic Anti-ship missile and we could adapt it possibly....

Otherwise we're back to the 1990's and this time US solutions be off the table.

 

[timmymagic]

Obviously it's possible to remanufacture WE.177, though whether that's a good idea is another thing.

Fitting Storm Shadow maybe possible.

A warhead to fit ASMP and purchase of the missile from France might be a way forward.

Japan might license their supersonic Anti-ship missile and we could adapt it possibly....

Otherwise we're back to the 1990's and this time US solutions be off the table.

WE177 definitely possible. It's use as an NDB also is useful.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I recently read that France is considering deploying some nuclear capable Rafales to Germany, to strengthen deterrence further east. I thought this was interesting enough and it might be useful if the British did it as well, but of course they retired their aircraft nukes in 1998 and now only have Trident., which aren't a very visible deterrent.

Given the changing geopolitics could Britain give the RAF a nuclear capability again? If so what would it be, a freefall bomb, maybe something with a touch more range?

It is physically possible.

Good question as to whether it's politically possible.

 

[Rule of cool]

IIUC Britain manufactures its own warheads for their Tridents, and some are 'sub strategic' which I assume means just the primary trigger without the hydrogen secondary.

How big are these British Trident warheads? I imagine they're small enough to be put in a case suitable for internal F35 carriage. Are they small enough to fit into a cruise missile? Israel is using air launched ballistic missiles these days, perhaps that's another option.

 

[Justo Miranda]

I recently read that France is considering deploying some nuclear capable Rafales to Germany, to strengthen deterrence further east. I thought this was interesting enough and it might be useful if the British did it as well, but of course they retired their aircraft nukes in 1998 and now only have Trident., which aren't a very visible deterrent.

Given the changing geopolitics could Britain give the RAF a nuclear capability again? If so what would it be, a freefall bomb, maybe something with a touch more range?

For me, it makes no sense to use tactical nuclear weapons on short-range fighter jets. Why risk the plane being shot down in enemy territory or destroyed during takeoff?

In an intercontinental bomber it makes sense to use strategic nuclear weapons, because the mission can be cancelled before launch if circumstances require it... But in a fifteen-minute tactical flight, that doesn't make sense.

In my opinion, it would be much safer and more effective to use tactical rockets of the ASMP type, which can be easily camouflaged and operated with a minimum of infrastructure.

 

[Dilandu]

Given the changing geopolitics could Britain give the RAF a nuclear capability again? If so what would it be, a freefall bomb, maybe something with a touch more range?

Theoretically yes, on practice, they would need to either re-develope nuclear gravity bombs, or figure some way to attach existing "Holbrook" warheads to fighter-launched missiles.

Since it's assumed that "Holbrook" is generally similar to US W76 warhead, it is probably possible to fit it into standard GP bomb casting. But I'm not sure about safety devices; ICBM warhead is likely have safety measures that would preclude its proper activation without being subjected to sufficient acceleration. They would need to be circumvented.

 

[Kiltonge]

For me, it makes no sense to use tactical nuclear weapons on short-range fighter jets. Why risk the plane being shot down in enemy territory or destroyed during takeoff?

You could say the same for conventional ordnance, but the risk appears manageable.

Don't forget that the only Bent Spear and Dull Sword incidents of the Cold War were from SAC strategic bombers, despite TAC holding the majority of the air-delivered inventory.

 

[Scott Kenny]

IIUC Britain manufactures its own warheads for their Tridents, and some are 'sub strategic' which I assume means just the primary trigger without the hydrogen secondary.

How big are these British Trident warheads? I imagine they're small enough to be put in a case suitable for internal F35 carriage. Are they small enough to fit into a cruise missile? Israel is using air launched ballistic missiles these days, perhaps that's another option.

There's pictures of Mk4 RBAs on the net, IIRC the base of the cone is ~20" in diameter. Maybe 24". I'd expect the primary to be roughly 10" in diameter.

 

[Ainen]

How big are these British Trident warheads? I imagine they're small enough to be put in a case suitable for internal F35 carriage. Are they small enough to fit into a cruise missile? Israel is using air launched ballistic missiles these days, perhaps that's another option.

That's probably a reliable no.
GCAP - sure, but with F-35 you're not solving moving US out.
Probably won't happen anyway, as US just won't integrate it.

 

[Scott Kenny]

That's probably a reliable no.
GCAP - sure, but with F-35 you're not solving moving US out.
Probably won't happen anyway, as US just won't integrate it.

Disagree. There's enough countries in Europe flying F-35s that if the UK replaced the US as supplier of dual-key nukes it'd be worth integrating.

 

[Ainen]

Disagree. There's enough countries in Europe flying F-35s that if the UK replaced the US as supplier of dual-key nukes it'd be worth integrating.

(1)US aren't really open to free integration of much simpler assets - things happen slowly and according to scedule. Here it's weapon and new security system, yet to be developed, yet to be intagrated. Given UK speeds, may as well aim at GCAP.

(2)If you're afraid of US as supplier of tridents (where US, as far as we know, have only relatively limited operational involvement) - chosing F-35 doesn't make sense. Your deterrent isn't really yours.

(3)If you don't believe US - "but worth integrating" argument doesn't work. They simply won't let you, B-61 integration is sufficient.

 

[Scott Kenny]

(1)US aren't really open to free integration of much simpler assets - things happen slowly and according to scedule. Here it's weapon and new security system, yet to be developed, yet to be intagrated. Given UK speeds, may as well aim at GCAP.

(2)If you're afraid of US as supplier of tridents (where US, as far as we know, have only relatively limited operational involvement) - chosing F-35 doesn't make sense. Your deterrent isn't really yours.

(3)If you don't believe US - "but worth integrating" argument doesn't work. They simply won't let you, B-61 integration is sufficient.

You're missing the point of the thought experiment here.

To wit: "What if the UK replaced the US as the provider of NATO Dual-Key nukes?"

This is at a point in the future.

Currently, much of Europe/NATO flies F-35s. If we are replacing US B61 nukes with UK WE177/whatever-the-new-designation-would-be, then the choices are 1) to integrate the British weapon into F-35s or 2) replace all F-35s with SCAF/GCAP.

 

[Rule of cool]

In the short-term, a standoff weapon could be used by the Typhoon, like the ASMP-A is used by the Rafale. That would give the British full control of the integration, with no interference from the USA.

The GCAP could then carry a development of such a weapon.

 

[Ainen]

To wit: "What if the UK replaced the US as the provider of NATO Dual-Key nukes?"

This is at a point in the future.

Currently, much of Europe/NATO flies F-35s. If we are replacing US B61 nukes with UK WE177/whatever-the-new-designation-would-be, then the choices are 1) to integrate the British weapon into F-35s or 2) replace all F-35s with SCAF/GCAP.

Yes, and I realistically only believe in option (2) here.
Or, closer, some typhoon weapon(SS or free fall bomb).

 

[Avimimus]

For me, it makes no sense to use tactical nuclear weapons on short-range fighter jets. Why risk the plane being shot down in enemy territory or destroyed during takeoff?

In an intercontinental bomber it makes sense to use strategic nuclear weapons, because the mission can be cancelled before launch if circumstances require it... But in a fifteen-minute tactical flight, that doesn't make sense.

In my opinion, it would be much safer and more effective to use tactical rockets of the ASMP type, which can be easily camouflaged and operated with a minimum of infrastructure.

I think the major benefits relate to nuclear sharing. It allows you to rapidly deploy nuclear weapons to a friendly country. It is easier to keep them safe at an airfield (even though it is also easier for them to be knocked out at the airfield). Any attack on the airfield potentially becomes an attack on both countries, and on the nuclear assets of the country which is extending its nuclear 'umbrella'... and so risks nuclear retaliation.

So it acts as an enhanced deterrent. Making an attack riskier due to likelihood of political/nuclear retaliation being increased (compared to, say, a deterrent which isn't forward deployed, like an SLBM).

 

[Hood]

The RJ10 seems the obvious candidate.

Dual-key for the UK would be problematic for many reasons. There is undoubtedly some US design involvement in the UK's warheads that would not be shareable. As far as I know, the UK and France have never shared nuclear secrets. Probably only France's warheads are ITAR free (again as far as we know). Either nation could conceivably vie for 'lead-key' status and that's probably not politically healthy.

But the RAF would have to re-learn all the nuclear protocols. While the RAF Regiment is adept at securing nuclear stores, it would mean training up the groundcrews and pilots, not to mention construction of infrastructure etc. Likely the problem would be similar for the surface navy if nuclear-tipped RJ10s were deployed on Type 45s.

 

[Lascaris]

With all due respect between the special relationship and the general reliance of British nuclear arsenal and delivery systems to the US since 1958 or so, if you are European its not making much sense to have Britain partly taking up the slack of the US deterrent. Much safer to sink money on expanding the French arsenal.

Although I short of suspect even that won't be thought as good enough in places like Poland, and they'll want their own independent arsenals much like France did during the cold war and for pretty similar reasons.

 

[Rule of cool]

French Rafales and ASMP-As aren't dual key, I don't think British air launched nukes would need to be either, WE177s weren't during the Cold War.

 

[Ainen]

With all due respect between the special relationship and the general reliance of British nuclear arsenal and delivery systems to the US since 1958 or so, if you are European its not making much sense to have Britain partly taking up the slack of the US deterrent. Much safer to sink money on expanding the French arsenal.

Although I short of suspect even that won't be thought as good enough in places like Poland, and they'll want their own independent arsenals much like France did during the cold war and for pretty similar reasons.

French arsenal is French, not European. Always was so, and arguably will remain so for foreseeble future.

There are many technical ways to get nukes for country x or y, it isn't that hard, and Europe doesn't lack countries as developed as Pakistan.

The problem is that EU umbrella arguably can only be a EU affair. I.e. not UK and not France. Otherwise, it will be UK or France providing questionable extended deterrence, and nothing more than that.
For that, EU needs to become a country.

 

[Dilandu]

The best UK probably could do is try to put their W76-derivative warheads on Storm Shadow cruise missiles & provide them with boosters for surface (from ships & trailer launchers) launch. In pure theory, they might fit.

 

[Justo Miranda]

I think the major benefits relate to nuclear sharing. It allows you to rapidly deploy nuclear weapons to a friendly country. It is easier to keep them safe at an airfield (even though it is also easier for them to be knocked out at the airfield). Any attack on the airfield potentially becomes an attack on both countries, and on the nuclear assets of the country which is extending its nuclear 'umbrella'... and so risks nuclear retaliation.

So it acts as an enhanced deterrent. Making an attack riskier due to likelihood of political/nuclear retaliation being increased (compared to, say, a deterrent which isn't forward deployed, like an SLBM).

The Sum of All Fears - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Mark 12 nuclear bomb - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Justo Miranda]

You could say the same for conventional ordnance, but the risk appears manageable.

Don't forget that the only Bent Spear and Dull Sword incidents of the Cold War were from SAC strategic bombers, despite TAC holding the majority of the air-delivered inventory.

Can you imagine the situation in which Truman would have found himself if the detonators of the Hiroshima bomb had failed? At that time the Japanese still had submarines capable of reaching Panama

 

[Kiltonge]

As far as I know, the UK and France have never shared nuclear secrets. Probably only France's warheads are ITAR free (again as far as we know). Either nation could conceivably vie for 'lead-key' status and that's probably not politically healthy.

The UK and France do operate a joint testing facility at Valduc, but some of the work there is carried out in 'national' areas:

CEA - EPURE - The French/UK joint facility EPURE

CEA - EPURE - The French/UK joint facility EPURE

www-teutates.cea.fr

https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2010-12/uk-france-sign-nuclear-collaboration-treaty

 

[Rule of cool]

If Britain did decide to get aircraft nukes again, I don't think it would be a massive, comprehensive programme in the short term. Given the RAF operates the F35B which can only carry 1,000lb bombs and is primarily a joint force with the RN I doubt it would be a nuke carrier. The issues with nuclear certification only make it less likely. I think the Typhoon with a stand-off weapon is more likely, jamming a W76 derived physics package into an existing missile would be the path of least resistance.

As for the dual key stuff, I don't think there's any great need. Britain and France are close NATO allies to Germany and due to their position in Europe have a stake in Eastern Europe that the US cannot match, making their nuclear stance more compelling despite it not being dual-key.

 

[zen]

Dual key can be worked in, I don't doubt.
It reassures everyone, that no one is going rogue and starting WWIII.

Primary served both Polaris and WE.177. Arguably the new primary, being sized for Trident aeroshell is reasonably compact enough for fitting to alternative systems. Like stand-off air launched missiles. ASMP and successor isn't a bad outcome, paralleling Storm Shadow/SCALP. Which has been a success.

Alternative could well be ASM-3 reconfigured for such. Japan is likely dusting off the emergency plan on going for breakout of nuclear. They have a spectrum of options.
10-1 odds ROK and ROC both follow suite. Probably there's backdoor talks with Vietnam right now.

My gut says we need to talk to France about resurrection of Hades.

There may yet be a capacity problem as European NATO surges orders away from US equipment to regional industries.

 

[uk 75]

I think France rather than UK will have to lead on a "European Nuclear Force"

Unlike the UK it has ASMP Rafales in service. Macron has already offered to send some of these to Germany.

Looking further ahead a new HADES perhaps deployed in Swedish or Finnish forests or in Poland may be needed to counter Putin's missiles in Belarus and Kaliningrad.

The UK meanwhile should look at buying French cruise missiles for the Astutes and fall back options for the Trident subs.

The UK should focus on areas where its existing forces can add value

With only limited resources we cannot afford a return to a Continental ground force like BAOR which was such a drain on our budget (despite W German financial help).

The shape and role of British ground forces will impact on how much we can spend on the RAF and nuclear forces as it did from 1949 to 1991.

 

[Rule of cool]

Why does there need to be some formal 'European nuclear force'? France and Britain are already in NATO and are nuclear powers, that's enough in my mind. Having France base some nuclear armed Rafales in Germany appears to be little different from when RAFG had WE177s and that only required Britain's NATO commitment.

 

[Nik]

Two points...

The Hiroshima device would work. After a couple of 'Tickling the Dragon' incidents, one fatal, assembling two sub-critical uranium lumps into one bang was not an issue.
The worry was the Nagasaki plutonium device, which worked by implosion, might simply 'fizzle' rather than 'fissile'. Hence the range test...
IIRC, their damage was comparable because Hiroshima was essentially flat, but the Nagasaki device dropped off-target, side-blast some-what mitigated by valley...

I'm reminded that the 'dual key' system for RAF bases releasing nukes to strike air-craft could be rapidly circumvented using the 'old school' can-opener kept near-by. The control panel was armoured, the back of the case no tougher than a 'bully beef' can...

 

[Scott Kenny]

I do not see why you would need or want supersonic weapons paired with subsonics: if you can wait for the later, just use more. Alternatively if the target is time sensitive or surprise is the goal, go with the former.

But in any case the USN seems to be adopting subsonic platforms in the short term (MALD-N, LrASM, Tom blk V, possibly MACE) and working towards high speed weapons for next decade (HALO, ACME). ACME seems like more of a low cost, high density (500 AUR/year) ‘stand in’ strike weapon, or short range stand off, which will settle for supersonic performance (the doc mentions high grain loaded SRM and ramjet; unclear if this is either or both in an integral boosted ramjet). HALO is a longer ranged, hypersonic low density system with a focus on ships.

The point is to complicate defensive planning.

 

[Ainen]

Why does there need to be some formal 'European nuclear force'? France and Britain are already in NATO and are nuclear powers, that's enough in my mind. Having France base some nuclear armed Rafales in Germany appears to be little different from when RAFG had WE177s and that only required Britain's NATO commitment.

Well, UK isn't in EU and there's bad blood over that. Dunkirk is heroic from British perspective, French have their different opinion on that.

France is pretty known for ideas to retaliate for Warsaw by obliterating Frankfurt. And overall being France before Europe.

Realistically, to rely on nuclear use(and not just ambiguity), you need:
-European command, preferably with sufficient eastern flank representation for key decision making. B/c one verifiably won't have separate value for different European targets.

-Wartime nuclear C&C capability akin to US and RU one. Which France has at best partially, and this is well beyond something any separate EU economy can fund.

For same reason, Brussels needs it's own non-national army, but that's beyond the scope.

 

[Archibald]

Dresden to Moscow. Well within range of Rafale + ASMP-A. If Putin really wants to play dumb... go ahead; make my day.

https://www.distance.to/Dresden,Sachsen,DEU/Moscow,RUS

About Typhoon having no centerline hardpoint: neither had Super Etendard. Still it carried an ASMP under a wing. Might be feasible to make SCALP nuclear, in that case just balance the weight with a fuel tank.

 

[timmymagic]

Dual Key is a non-starter as existing nuclear sharing arrangements were 'grandfathered' in to the NPT as they were already in operation.
But starting doing that again without the US holding one side of the key, or with other countries like Poland involved, would open Pandora's box in terms of NPT...and despite where we're heading no-one will want to do that.

For the UK though resurrecting WE.177 would make a little sense. But carriage on Typhoon would be a problem....Typhoon isn't going to be penetrating enemy airspace as well as F-35 to drop a bomb, so realistically it would need to be a standoff weapon either using Storm Shadow, or more likely FCASW in its subsonic, stealthy guise...unfortunately the latter won't be here until the early 2030's...which is fairly close to GCAP arrival...

There aren't really any good choices...

- WE.177 resurrection - Would need integration on Typhoon and Merlin, which takes time. Both are edge cases in terms of use and delivery. US is exceptionally unlikely to allow integration to F-35 or P-8....
- Storm Shadow - Typhoon only, easier integration. But it is a weapon reaching end of life....won't work on F-35, P-8 or Merlin...
- FCASW Subsonic - Won't arrive until 2030's, will need integrating on Typhoon and GCAP. Won't work on Merlin, F-35 or P-8....
- FCASW Supersonic - UK on its own as the French will have their own nuclear equivalent AS4NG in 'hypersonic' form. By the time it arrives the only integration that makes sense is GCAP, which could also deliver WE.177...which leads us back to the start....

Other choices....not aviation based....
- Nuclear MdCN and LACM - Actually a good choice. Gives Astute Tomahawk replacement from TTL and nuclear capability, could be added to ships with replacement of Sylver A50 on T45 with Sylver A70 or A70NG (Mk.41 is not looking so smart now...). Joint production with MBDA easily set up. LACM could be the new GLCM...the Russian's are already suspected to have a nuclear capable GLCM in operation...
- ASMP-AR - Would take a while to integrate on Typhoon only....debatable if it added much, would be easier for Europe to get the French to expand their holdings and Rafale fleet (perhaps in a joint squadron like the RAF/QEAF joint Typhoon/Hawk squadron)
- ASN4G - Won't arrive until at least 2035, which takes you back to WE.177 and FCASW Subsonic...

If only Nimrod MRA.4 hadn't failed....NDB no issues....and Storm Shadow carriage with colossal range...would have given us some real options....

 

[Scott Kenny]

Dual Key is a non-starter as existing nuclear sharing arrangements were 'grandfathered' in to the NPT as they were already in operation.
But starting doing that again without the US holding one side of the key, or with other countries like Poland involved, would open Pandora's box in terms of NPT...and despite where we're heading no-one will want to do that.

Funny, I don't see the NPT surviving the decade, since Ukraine 2022 demonstrated what happens to a nation without nukes when a nation with nukes wants something.

Good job, Vlad.

For the UK though resurrecting WE.177 would make a little sense. But carriage on Typhoon would be a problem....Typhoon isn't going to be penetrating enemy airspace as well as F-35 to drop a bomb, so realistically it would need to be a standoff weapon either using Storm Shadow, or more likely FCASW in its subsonic, stealthy guise...unfortunately the latter won't be here until the early 2030's...which is fairly close to GCAP arrival...

There aren't really any good choices...

- WE.177 resurrection - Would need integration on Typhoon and Merlin, which takes time. Both are edge cases in terms of use and delivery. US is exceptionally unlikely to allow integration to F-35 or P-8....
- Storm Shadow - Typhoon only, easier integration. But it is a weapon reaching end of life....won't work on F-35, P-8 or Merlin...
- FCASW Subsonic - Won't arrive until 2030's, will need integrating on Typhoon and GCAP. Won't work on Merlin, F-35 or P-8....
- FCASW Supersonic - UK on its own as the French will have their own nuclear equivalent AS4NG in 'hypersonic' form. By the time it arrives the only integration that makes sense is GCAP, which could also deliver WE.177...which leads us back to the start....

The UK has F-35Bs, which even in the US aren't nuclear-capable. Only the -As are.

The "easy" way to integrate would be a completely separate panel for the nukes, incorporating PAL lock and the GPS coordinates of the target you're planning on giving a nice can of instant sunshine to, then running dedicated cables to the weapons bay(s) for weapons release. I haven't seen an F-35 cockpit so I'm not sure how viable this would be. Adding another panel to the P-8 would be trivial, I'd probably give it to one of the sensor operators in back instead of in the cockpit, but there's still space in the cockpit if you had to do it that way.

Side note: The F-35Bs mean that your weapon diameter is more limited than you'd think, IIRC only ~11" diameter for the physics package.

Other choices....not aviation based....
- Nuclear MdCN and LACM - Actually a good choice. Gives Astute Tomahawk replacement from TTL and nuclear capability, could be added to ships with replacement of Sylver A50 on T45 with Sylver A70 or A70NG (Mk.41 is not looking so smart now...). Joint production with MBDA easily set up. LACM could be the new GLCM...the Russian's are already suspected to have a nuclear capable GLCM in operation...
- ASMP-AR - Would take a while to integrate on Typhoon only....debatable if it added much, would be easier for Europe to get the French to expand their holdings and Rafale fleet (perhaps in a joint squadron like the RAF/QEAF joint Typhoon/Hawk squadron)
- ASN4G - Won't arrive until at least 2035, which takes you back to WE.177 and FCASW Subsonic...

If only Nimrod MRA.4 hadn't failed....NDB no issues....and Storm Shadow carriage with colossal range...would have given us some real options....

Fully agree that the best option would be a nuclear cruise missile of roughly Tomahawk size.

Sub crews would hate you, however, because the paperwork for being allowed to handle nukes SUCKS in the USN and I can only assume that the RN has it just as bad if not worse (older Navy, more paperwork).

 

[zen]

If you want to try to keep the NPT and CTBT going, then we're talking about the current nuclear powers in Europe.
That's the UK and France.

Inserting political agendas over ambitions to end the independence of European states is taking us far from the main topic. It's also opening up a monstrous can of worms.

The UK currently spends 2.3% of GDP on Defence and at some stage this will rise well beyond the 2.5% of 2027 planning and 3% of 2030 expectations.
Despite the capacity issues, I suspect we're on the cusp of an acceleration back to 5% or above and the current schedule is likely to be scrapped. Events be in train and the full consequences of them have yet to play out.

Considerable political issues will attend such a process. Once it starts.

 

[Yellow Palace]

The "easy" way to integrate would be a completely separate panel for the nukes, incorporating PAL lock and the GPS coordinates of the target you're planning on giving a nice can of instant sunshine to, then running dedicated cables to the weapons bay(s) for weapons release.

The really easy way is not to bother with PAL at all...

 

[Scott Kenny]

The really easy way is not to bother with PAL at all...

Okay, yes, that's true, but I would hope that the military portion of whatever discussion came up with that brilliant idea would proceed to beat some intelligence into whoever said it.

There's a reason the US offered EVERY nuclear weapon state PAL locks and the entire technical data package free of charge. Even the Soviets. I think it was even offered to the Norks, but I doubt they accepted it.

 

[Grey Havoc]

Good question as to whether it's politically possible.

Given the deep hole that Starmer and company have dug for themselves, might be easier than it would first appear. Whether the current government and Civil Service could competently manage such an effort is another matter though.

 

[timmymagic]

The really easy way is not to bother with PAL at all...

Back to nuclear bike locks for the win...

 

[zen]

Back to nuclear bike locks for the win...

I'm sorry Armageddon is postponed because we've forgotten the code