Latest news with #F35A
Telegraph
22-07-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
American nuclear weapons return to British soil
The US has stationed nuclear weapons in Britain for the first time in more than 15 years, experts believe. An American C-17 transport plane visited RAF Lakenheath in Suffolk on Thursday, making a transatlantic journey from Kirtland Air Force base in New Mexico, where the US Air Force (USAF) stores nuclear bombs. Analysts said it was likely that the flight contained nuclear bombs, which were last stationed in the UK in 2008, before being removed under the Obama administration. The Telegraph previously revealed details of an upcoming 'nuclear mission' at Lakenheath in unclassified documents that appeared to have been published by the US government by accident. Neither the British nor American governments routinely comment on the location of nuclear weapons. However, experts said the C-17 flight last week closely matched previous missions by the USAF to transport nuclear bombs. The airspace over the base was restricted on Thursday and the aircraft did not immediately return to the US, in what one analyst told the Times appeared to be a 'one-way drop-off'. Priority mission The plane also refuelled over the East Coast of the US. The Aviationist specialist news website said this was a clue that it was flying a priority mission. RAF Lakenheath is the home of the USAF's 48th Fighter Wing, which contains two squadrons of F-15E Strike Eagle fast jets and two squadrons of the fifth-generation F-35A jets. The UK announced recently that it would purchase its own squadron of F-35As, which the Ministry of Defence confirmed on Monday could drop nuclear gravity bombs. These British planes are expected to be equipped from a stockpile of US weapons stored in Britain. It will be the first time that Britain has the capacity to air-launch nuclear weapons since the retirement of the WE.177 gravity bomb in 1998. 'This decision reintroduces a nuclear role for the RAF for the first time since the UK retired its sovereign air-launched nuclear weapons after the Cold War,' said an MoD document published on Monday. The decision by the previous US government to station nuclear weapons in Britain again came as part of an adjustment of Nato's nuclear posture in Europe, in response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The Telegraph revealed last year that the Lakenheath base had bought new blast shields and was building a 'surety dormitory'. Surety is a euphemism used by the US military to refer to the safe storage of nuclear weapons. William Alberque, the former director of Nato's nuclear non-proliferation, told The Times that the transport aircraft that visited Lakenheath on Thursday had flown from the US with its transponders on, which allowed it to be tracked by foreign governments and aviation enthusiasts. He said: 'Flying transpondered C-17s from hot storage in Kirtland to Lakenheath and then returning and not going to a storage facility tells me this is a one-way drop-off flight. 'Sometimes these particular C-17 flights are flown without transponders. So, the fact that they transpondered, this suggests to me that this has got to be deliberate.'
The Guardian
28-06-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
‘Are we safe, if nuclear weapons are here?': trepidation in Norfolk village over new jets
The genteel west Norfolk village of Marham does not seem to be at the forefront of Britain's military might. A dance class is about to start in the village hall, a game of crown green bowls is under way and swallows are swooping around the medieval church tower as wood pigeons coo. 'It's a lovely, quiet little village,' says Nona Bourne as she watches another end of bowls in a match between Marham and nearby Massingham. Like many, Bourne is troubled by the news that this week thrust Marham to the frontline of UK's nuclear arsenal, in the biggest expansion of the programme for a generation. Without consultation, RAF Marham is to be equipped with new F-35A jets capable of carrying warheads with three times the explosive power of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. Bourne said: 'When they spread it all over the news that these planes are going to come here from America with these bombs, it makes you think we're going to be targeted. My bungalow is five minutes from the base.' The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament is planning a protest in Marham on Saturday. Bourne, whose son-in-law used to work at the base, is tempted to take part. 'I might join in,' she says. 'My daughter says we've always been a target here, but I am concerned. If I was younger I'd think about moving, but I'm 83, I'm not going anywhere.' Sisters Becky, 29, and Katherine Blakie, 31, are heading to a friend's house for a plunge in their hot tub. 'I read about the weapons on Facebook,' says Becky. 'It's strange to think they'll be here in little old Marham.' Becky, who works in fundraising, is annoyed that the village was not consulted about the decision. She says: 'Marham and the RAF base are intertwined so we should definitely have had a say.' Katherine, a medical student, says: 'It makes you think, 'Are we safe, if people know nuclear weapons are here?'' At this stage it is unclear where the nuclear warheads will be housed, but new jets to be based at Marham have the capacity to drop them. Wherever they are stored, the fear Marham will be a target is widespread in the village. 'Look what happened at Pearl Harbor,' says Patricia Gordon after finishing her bowls match. 'We'd be obliterated here.' She adds: 'And with Donald Trump's finger on the button, does it matter that we've got nuclear weapons or not?' But her partner, Bruce Townsend, 77, a retired lorry driver, thinks the nuclear deterrent works. He says: 'You can't give up nuclear weapons. Iran, and those countries, know damn well that if they start anything, they'll just get wiped out.' He adds: 'I feel the same about the protest as I did about people who tried to ban the bomb. It's stupid. They can't change it.' It is the men in Marham who seem more relaxed about the prospect of nuclear-armed planes on their doorstep. Chris Joice, a carer who used to work at the base, says: 'We've had F-35s for so many years, and having the next model isn't going to make much difference.' Joice is out walking a friend's dog, Millie, who has an RAF roundel pendant strapped to her collar. He is concerned about the lack of consultation: 'I'm just annoyed that all these decisions go ahead and the common man doesn't have a single word in.' He adds: 'No one needs that kind of firepower. I'd rather people rolled dice to settle their beefs.' Others are more full-throated in their support. Jim Smith, 79, a retired construction worker, remembers nuclear weapons at the base in the 1950s. 'They had them up there in 1958 or 59 when they had the V bombers. It stopped a world war then. And it's no different now.' A man on a bike who would only give his name as John recently retired as a grounds maintenance worker at the base. He says: 'They're never going to attack us. It would be Armageddon if it comes to that. So it doesn't make a shite's worth of difference worrying about it.' He adds: 'I don't mind protest, I'm a biker so I'm all about freedom, but I've got better things to do. People protesting here don't live in the real world, they should worry instead about people sleeping on the streets in King's Lynn.' Colin Callaby, 64, is out picking cherries from a tree in the middle of the village. The cherries, which he plans to turn into wine, are the sweetest he has ever known. 'We're right in the firing line,' he says, 'but if there's going to be a nuclear bomb we're all done for so I'd rather be right underneath it and die instantly than be 50 miles away and take weeks to die from radiation.' He adds: 'It's very sad that mankind has got to spend billions of pounds on mass destruction and we can't do something better with that money. But what can you do?'
Daily Mirror
26-06-2025
- Politics
- Daily Mirror
Is all this talk about war an attempt from Starmer to impress Donald Trump?
So Sir Keir Starmer is ramping up the rhetoric and re-upping on the UK's defence weaponry. The Prime Minister has announced a £1billion deal to buy 12 nuclear-ready F35A jets from the US. That will warm the hearts of the millions of UK citizens unaware of where their next meal will come from. Or the voters bracing themselves for welfare cuts. As the legendary rapper Tupac Shakur once said: 'They got money for wars but they can't feed the poor." The government is warning us to prepare for war on home soil for the first time since the German occupation of the Channel Islands during the Second World War. But why? The National Security Strategy document, out earlier this week, is suggesting there are threats from nukes, troops, terrorism, chemical warfare and so much much more. A country like the UK would have threats against it all the time. But if there is a specific, credible worry to us then surely they should be telling us, shouldn't they? Because it smells worryingly like an attempt to confect an appetite for war. Anyone able to think for themselves could be forgiven for noting a similarity with the flawed dossier used in 2003 to justify joining the US-led Iraq war. And it really does appear that we in this country have learned nothing from that devastating conflict. On the basis of 'sexed up' evidence - parroted on TV, radio and in print by every lapdog politician and his or her dog back then - Tony Blair's Labour government joined George for a conflict that the then-United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, would later describe as 'illegal'. Around 150,000 people - 120,000 of them civilians - died as a result. It was a war that would create new martyrs, new terrorists, new dangers, death and destruction in the west. Dissenters at the time were dismissed as unpatriotic as this country leaned into the bloodlust of which the current climate is frighteningly reminiscent. So, again, the question now is the same as it was then. Where is the evidence? Or was it an attempt to roll up his sleeve and flex his bicep to prove to US President Donald Trump that Starmer too is able to flex? Because, on the basis of historic Anglo-American foreign policy, a number of countries around the world have been burning flags and saying unkind things about the west for decades now. Far from ideal, but there you go. So what else? Iran, which hasn't attacked anyone directly for decades, has supposedly been three months away from a nuclear bomb for 30 years. They weren't even involved this whole caboodle until Israel starting bombing them last week. Now we hear that the US intelligence reports suggest the bombing raids over the weekend were nowhere near as successful in 'obliterating' the core component's of Iran's nuclear capability as Donald Trump has been suggesting. The US President has stuck to his guns and has adopted his favourite strategy of shooting the messengers, the media contingent willing to point out that actually, the Emperor isn't wearing any clothes. But sadly, while he and his ago remain intent on hunting down a Nobel Prize, the appetite here appears to be to foment that appetite for conflict. Even to characterise the Iranians as a clear and present danger - even though precisely nobody was talking in those terms even a month ago - is fascinating. Starmer seems determined to turn some of the attention onto himself, and it feels like an attempt to elbow his way into a conversation that doesn't concern this country. Throw in the fact that we in Britain love to invoke wartime rhetoric, and that Starmer can frame himself as the PM able to keep this country safe, and here we are. But we are whipping up fear when the facts completely contradict the narrative that our leaders in this country, across Europe and Stateside are pushing. And, worryingly, it has left Iran doing exactly what many feared: pulling out of talks to keep weapons inspectors apprised of what they are up to. You'd have to assume they will also carry on exploring the nuclear option after being told they cannot have one by the west - most of whose countries have one themselves. If Iran wanted to create any kind of WMD, for example, they'll have had the capability to do so - and use one - for years, wouldn't they? And even if you didn't want to surmise, what about the actual US Intelligence stating (until Trump's intervention) that there was no evidence the Iranians were knee deep in malign intent? What about the International Atomic Energy Agency chief Rafael Grossi who remains adamant that the Iranians had not been building a nuclear weapon? At what point did we stop listening to the experts in favour of the leaders keen to evoke war - euphemistically described as 'peace through strength' - on vibes? The big picture is that Mark Rutte, the Secretary General of NATO, is so desperate to keep Trump from pulling America out of the Alliance that his performance at Wednesday's media briefing was embarrassing. So much so that he needed a torch to climb out of the President's tradesman's entrance. It was little surprise, then, to see him soothing the ego of Trump by insisting the President and his utterly unqualified acolytes were right, you can bomb a mountain and wipe out materials buried so deep underground you'd need to enter another time zone to find them. It is the theatre of the absurd but whatever the truth of the matter, Starmer should be better than this. Much better. Ends
Washington Post
26-06-2025
- Business
- Washington Post
U.K. to buy jets that can carry nuclear bombs as part of military buildup
Britain is embarking on an ambitious military buildup not seen in the country since the end of the Cold War, announcing on Monday that it is buying a dozen F-35A fighter jets capable of carrying nuclear bombs. Earlier this month, London released a defense review that outlined plans to acquire more attack submarines, boost space capabilities, create a new cyber-electromagnetic command, construct more munition factories and enhance its nuclear arsenal. The moves come against the backdrop of what Britain views as a looming threat from Russia and its concerns about the potential for a U.S. military drawdown from Europe in the coming years. 'Russian aggression menaces our continent. Strategic competition is intensifying. Extremist ideologies are on the rise,' British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said in a statement outlining his country's new defense posture. 'It is an era of radical uncertainty.' The F-35A jets will expand Britain's nuclear warhead delivery options. Since the Cold War's end in the 1990s, Britain has relied on its nuclear-capable ballistic missile submarines for nuclear deterrence. With the F-35As, which can carry B61 nuclear bombs, Britain's air force is reacquiring nuclear capabilities it lost when it retired its airdropped nuclear bombs in 1998. The F-35As are generally cheaper than the F-35B jets that Britain already operates. A 2022 estimate from the Congressional Budget Office said each F-35A costs as low as $89 million while the F-35Bs cost at least $102 million per unit. The F-35As also offer higher fuel capacity and weapon payloads than the F-35Bs. Lockheed Martin is the lead manufacturer for the F-35A fighter jet, which is operated by 20 countries, including the United States. The jets will participate in NATO's nuclear dual capable aircraft missions, which involve European warplanes trained to operate U.S. nuclear bombs that are forward-deployed to Europe to deter Russia from launching a nuclear attack. Britain plans to acquire a total of 138 F-35 fighters, including the F-35B variant, according to its Defense Ministry. The ministry described the United Kingdom's security environment as the most volatile and uncertain 'at any time in the past 30 years,' in its defense review. It noted Russia's ongoing attack on Ukraine, the possibility of a U.S. military pivot to Asia that could reduce U.S. troop levels and the potential for war to reach the British homeland. This new atmosphere requires Britain to reorient its current force from one that is more optimized 'for conflicts primarily fought against non-state actors,' to one that can mobilize ''whole-of-society' preparations for war,' authors of the defense review, which was led by George Robertson, a former NATO secretary general and British defense secretary, wrote. To meet that goal, Britain pledged to increase national security spending to 5 percent of its GDP by 2035 — which will be the sum of a 3.5 percent defense budget and a 1.5 percent budget that will be considered 'defense-related.' Britain spends 2.3 percent of its GDP on defense today, down from 4.1 percent in 1989. Its military has 136,000 regular personnel, less than half of the 311,000 it had during the Cold War. With the additional funding, Britain aims to expand its nuclear-powered attack submarine fleet from today's nine up to 12, and acquire the ability to manufacture a new submarine every 18 months. It will seek to counter Russia's and China's rising threats in space, according to the review, which noted that the combined operational satellite fleets of the two countries increased by 70 percent in the 2019-2021 period. Britain will also invest 1.5 billion pounds, or around $2 billion, to build a pipeline for munitions as well as at least six new factories for munitions and explosives.
France 24
25-06-2025
- Politics
- France 24
Alliance with "daddy" issues? NATO leaders flatter Trump to keep US on board
Promises and purchases: Britain buying 12 F35A fighter jets made in the US of A. Music to Trump's ears but how will that announcement go down with the likes of France which has been arguing for Europe to reduce its dependency on Washington? And then there's Ukraine. Trump in the end taking the meeting with Volodymyr Zelenskiy but there too mixed messages both when it comes to Russia's relentless campaign of aggression and the benefit of the doubt so often granted by Trump to Vladimir Putin. Produced by Rebecca Gnignati, Elisa Amiri, Ilayda Habip.
