We really need to up our defence game by not requiring collaboration with other countries or companies.
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.
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.
It's probably not possible anymore. One problem in the US, and presumably the UK and other first-world countries, we've lost not only the ability to make things, but we've lost the ability to make things used to make things. For instance, we need machine shops that no longer exist (with machinists that no longer exist, with training programs that no longer exist) to make machines used to build more complicated parts. We've been outsourcing it to China because it was cheaper and now they have all that expertise (despite the shabbiness of some Chinese products, some of their products are absolutely not-at-all shabby).
We did this to ourselves and some people got very rich doing so and it's in their best interests that this remains the case. These same people may claim to want to bring this expertise back home, but really, they want to bring it back, but continue to make even bigger profits. Politicians cry about it on the evening news, but they just want to make campaign promises that will be thrown out as soon as a political donation is made. Workers want it, but without training by people who don't exist, its not possible.
We are screwed, we did it to ourselves, and there's no unscrewing it anymore.
There's no unscrewing it quickly. If we could execute a decades-long plan (we can barely execute a quarter-long plan so that seems unlikely) the information needed exists, it's "just" a matter of having people learning how to implement it again & building the needed equipment. And that's largely an economic problem, and thus politically infeasible. But the skills were invented by people who didn't have training from others in how to do those skills, it's not inherently impossible to re-develop them, especially since there's documentation on a lot of the skills. It's just difficult, slow, and expensive.
We are screwed, we did it to ourselves, and we're not willing to pay the cost to unscrew it.
It would be nice if the maker movement could have more impact. While it is an interesting avocation (and sometimes much more), it is not widespread enough to have a major impact. Also, it is not exactly a low-cost sort of thing (I guess it could be, I just haven't seen those examples yet).
This is simply not true. Did you walk any US, UK and other first-world countries factories? A lot of them have separate machinist shops with tens or hundreds of machinists who can make pretty much anything given materials and time. Even every other small factory has a machinist shop where all kinds of things are made including whole machines, parts, improvements for existing machines, etc. In my small town there are two small modern machinist shops that can make anything you want. Look around and see if there are any factories or small shops and ask if you can take a look. You would be amazed by locally made high tech you see and what can be done.
I'm not really sure when and where the "we've lost the ability to make things" came from?
We haven't completely lost the ability to make things that make things and yes, there are machine shops in factories across the US. But how many of those machine shops have the equipment and expertise to completely produce the machines necessary to make a, for example, car, from carburetor to computer chips, without going outside the US. An increasingly large number of foundational products are being made in other countries and shipped here for assembly (and even that is being outsourced now).
Note: I should mention that I'm actually mostly OK with this - I don't have a huge issue with globalism. What I do have an issue with is people who claim this is a horrible, horrible situation while these same people are the ones who put us in this condition and continue to profit from it, without attempting to actually fix it, and expecting someone else to step up and fix it.
> 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.
Indeed - the UK needs to rely more on home grown solutions. No harm in using foreign components/expertise to make progress, but we have to constantly strive to achieve self-reliance. This may never happen, but the trajectory needs be in that direction.
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.
“Self reliance” in military terms is overrated because it means redundancy which increases costs and sourcing everything domestically means missing out on comparative advantage of different countries). The UK doesn’t have nearly enough colonies to source materials anymore.
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).
The tradeoffs depend a lot on how reliable the external dependencies are. Sourcing from Europe seems pretty low risk high reward for the foreseeable future. Relying on the US seemed really safe 10+ years ago but is much less so currently. If I were any non-US country right now I wouldn't want to find myself in a war critically reliant on US resources.
> We really need to up our defence game by not requiring collaboration with other countries or companies.
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.
> 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.
In fact UK car companies WERE soot covered factories (eg Jaguar and Land Rover) as recently as the 1990s (when Ford bought them and completely upgraded their production lines).
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.
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
and that is wrong morally/politically/national pride; we should re-industrialize and pronto.
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?
> 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.
I actually welcome the United Kingdom’s growing economic dependence on its neighbours and other countries. Greater interdependence can hopefully moderate HM Government’s belligerence:
* Lowering the appetite for more illegal expeditionary wars and the untold civilian cost that comes with them,
* Curbing military and diplomatic support for the Israeli genocide in Gaza,
* Leaving UK-controlled territories such as the Chagos Islands, overseas military bases, and Northern Ireland, all of which suffer endless human rights abuses under HM Government,
* Curbing arms sales to authoritarian regimes with dire human rights records, like Saudi Arabia, Cameroon, Egypt, and of course, itself.
Ordinary British citizens would also benefit. Fewer taxes and human lives spent on foreign interventions and more resources directed to neglected communities at home.
> 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.
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.
> 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.
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.
The F-35 cannot be made without the UK. There are key components which are only produced in the UK and for which there is no secondary supplier.
Even countries happy to spend huge proportions of GDP on weapons, like Israel, cannot build a modern fighter in house.
The solution for the UK is European integration which potentially brings the money, skills and manpower to build a better plane than exists anywhere including the US.
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).
The refueling seems like a very minor issue. In joint NATO missions, the F-35A can just be fueled by tankers operated by the US. Alternatively, if the UK intends to operate these 12 planes long term and on missions that actually require refueling, they could buy or modify one or more tankers.
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.
The subtext is that everyone is now realizing how stupid it is to be militarily reliant on the USA, and big spends like this are now under extreme scrutiny. The USA is not a reliable partner.
"If Boeing can't do it, it must be hard", is that what you're saying? Are you implying that Boeing is better at building aircraft than Airbus (or really anyone else)?
What is the benefit of nuclear sharing for European countries? The sites where the nukes are stored will attract Russian strikes and you don't have the launch codes.
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.
> What is the benefit of nuclear sharing for European countries? The sites where the nukes are stored will attract Russian strikes and you don't have the launch codes.
I guarantee you the Balkans countries that joined NATO would LOVE to have that problem instead of the current problems they have.
My first reaction is - why should the UK be launching US-made nuclear weapons?
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...)
That's probably one of very few options available quickly.
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.
> 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.
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:
It's hard to take this "looming war" with Russia seriously when WWIII didn't happen during the USSR times when Russia was much stronger. It's hard to believe that Russia would want to start WWIII now when they didn't then and when they have shown that they were highly struggling in Ukraine (and they struggled in Chechnya, too).
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.
Now, specifically for the UK, again I think this is largely pandering to the US to attract favours (tariffs, etc)
I think, sure, while Russia is fighting in Ukraine, they would really struggle to attack elsewhere.
But were they to win, which is not that hard to imagine, they would suddenly have a war-time economy and suddenly able to move troops to another border. Russia is always making threats, most recently Putin said at a Russian Economic Forum that "wherever a Russian soldier's boot stood, belongs to Russia".
As for fearing NATO... Russia was always good at salami tactics: take a slice and back off before backlash mounts. If they helped themselves to Estonia, say, over 48 hours, would the US, UK and France send nukes? Send much at all? Possibly not, and Putin knows it.
None of it pertains to the "when" question, but I can easily imagine circumstances where it happens.
> If they helped themselves to Estonia, say, over 48 hours, would the US, UK and France send nukes? Send much at all? Possibly not, and Putin knows it.
They clearly wouldn't send nukes but Russian forces would still be destroyed by conventional means. Ukraine has shown that the Russian air force is weak and poorly supplied (see how the US or Israel operate from the air while Russia sends in ground troops almost immediately) so would lose air control very quickly and then be carpet bombed.
Russia is good at making threats but reality is different. In general, the really powerful don't need to make big threats all the time because they are both confident of their strengths and they know the opposition is fully aware of them, too. Putin threatens nuclear armageddon all the time because, really, that's all he has to appear strong.
I don't think Finland and Sweden would have joined NATO if this were just a pan-European power grab. They want to be separate countries. They joined because they genuinely believe that Putin has his eye on them.
That would be insane, but Putin is taking his playbook from the Cold War "madman" theory. He wants you to be guessing, which scatters your attention and misdirects your forces.
The Soviet Union engaged in plenty of proxy wars with the West, but they always avoided engaging directly with Western Europe. Putin has upped the ante by attacking Ukraine, which the West considers an ally and was moving towards a formal alliance.
That puts the madman theory in play. He makes rhetorical feints at Scandinavia. He knows the West won't ignore them, because they don't know if he's kidding.
I concur that the UK is just sucking up to the US here. The US has become a very unreliable partner and Europe needs to find a way to mollify it while they figure out how they can deal with Putin's continuous needling by themselves.
"Putin has an eye on Sweden" does not pass the most basic smell test, now even less than during the Cold War...
My take is that Sweden wanted to abandon its historical neutrality formally to fully join the rest of the "group" but needed something to make the public agree.
> which the West considers an ally and was moving towards a formal alliance.
No, Ukraine was not an ally and was not going to join NATO.
No-one even wanted Ukraine in the EU because it is so sht (dubbed the most corrupt country in Europe) before the Russian (re-)invasion and now, somehow, it should be fastracked...
This is all the usual murky, dodgy dealings in geopolitics but Europeans have lost their "nose" for propaganda in the media, especially in the West where there is no such thing, right?
> because they don't know if he's kidding*
We know exactly what their strengths and our strengths are, and they know them, too. Russia is not going to invade the EU/NATO anymore than during the USSR times. Basic common sense, again.
> "Putin has an eye on Sweden" does not pass the most basic smell test, now even less than during the Cold War...
It does pass. Invading the Swedish island of Gotland would cut off air and sea routes to the Baltics, while a ground move against the Suwalki gap between Poland and Lithuania would sever land routes. Map: https://warsawinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Balti... Keep in mind that Belarus should also be marked in red, because it hosts Russian forces and allows them free passage.
It is one of the most obvious hostile moves against the EU and NATO, and Europe clearly doesn't have the means nor the will to launch a major war to liberate the countries. Everything hinges on the US, and we all know the state of things there.
Not only is this realistic, but the affected countries are taking remarkable steps to counter it. Sweden withdrew its military presence from Gotland in 2005 and disbanded the Gotland Regiment. After Russia invaded Ukraine, Sweden re-established the regiment, returned tanks and IFVs and radars and air defense systems to Gotland, and is building up a brigade-strength task force to defend the island by 2027.
Are the UK or the US prepositioning forces in Gibraltar and Alaska to repel an invasion, renovating bunkers and shelters, and making preparations to evacuate the civilian population?
Interestingly you are not replying to my points. You are only repeating what the media tell the public.
Now, it is perfectly norm0al for Sweden to secure its territory. But the narrative and policies go way beyond this and, again, my take is that Russia is just a pretext to implement those by overblowing the threat.
If anything, the media is downplaying the preparations to calm the population.
Russia is not a pretext, but the reason for the preparations. Russian actions, from invading Georgia in 2008 to annexing Crimea in 2014 and launching a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, to the current wave of sabotage, have fundamentally changed security assessments. These aren't hypothetical threats being "overblown". They're real, documented acts of aggression that have forced countries to reassess their defenses. The policies are a direct response to that reality, not an excuse manufactured to justify them.
Dismissing that as mere PR is incredibly shallow. If the Swedish government wanted a publicity stunt, they would stage a photo op, not expand conscription and form new brigades.
Not PR or publicity stunt, more like "conspiracy". I have already written that my theory is that this is to manufacture consent of the public for a push of the EU into military matters and a further power-grab of the EU over European nation states. It is not very subtle but it seems to be working nevertheless.
Yes, the problem is that those planes are useless to the UK in term of nuclear capability: They can only carry American tactical nukes, which the UK does not obviously have, and any strikes would require authorization by the US and NATO and then supply by the US.
I.e. the UK is paying to follow the orders of the US President.
This is presumably the same as the naval component - the missiles and warheads are American, and I'd be amazed if the UK can use them if the US vetoes.
Trident carries UK-manufactured warheads and is allegedly independent, even though it does rely on US ballistic missiles to carry them. Wikipedia says -
"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"
This assumes the US will be still in NATO and on our side. Given that the US is now governed by Russian assets, I don't think it is even a good idea to buy American weapons at all.
The UK should double down on home grown military tech.
Yeah as a British person if anything I think the French had the right idea and we need to be moving away from dependence on American SLBMs in favour of a fully indigenous programme.
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.
> Given that the US is now governed by Russian assets
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..?
Because destabilising NATO by framing it as an unfair burden is the Russian objective. You think yelling at allies to pay up, threatening to leave NATO, and undermining trust serves Western unity? Putin doesn't need puppets who wave a Russian flag - he needs chaos agents who erode alliances under the guise of tough love. Congrats on falling for the 'if he criticises Europe, he must be pro-America' bait. Textbook.
The classic "Europe was freeloading" line - straight from the Kremlin's greatest hits compilation. Here's the thing: the post-WWII security architecture wasn't designed out of charity or naivety. The U.S. wanted to anchor Europe under its military umbrella, precisely to prevent another arms race on the continent (you know, like the one that gave us Nazi Germany). Re-arming Europe too fast or too independently was a geopolitical nightmare the U.S. wisely avoided.
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.
My understanding is that F-35's come with a deployment of US personnel that hold the encryption keys necessary to program the flight computers. You're always flying these at the mercy of the US. Not to mention the dependency of modern fighter craft on a steady supply of parts.
I don't believe that is the case however since this is a very complex aircraft the only place you can get parts/service is from Lockheed and they are under US jurisdiction. If the US can force Microsoft to sanction an ICJ prosecutor then they can tell Lockheed to not service an aircraft.
Switzerland this week found out that "fixed price" does not mean fixed price. The 6 Billion Swiss francs that the purchase of 36 F35s was supposed to cost is going to supposedly cost 1.5 Billion more. [1]
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.
This is mostly just inheriting the weird decision making US side - navy and airforce using different refueling standards rather than some UK screwup.
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.
Kind of a misleading title, tankers just switch out the boom. If that's the best quip they could come up with for the title it makes me doubt the remainder of the reporting. Such a little thing to hang clickbait on.
The RAF tankers can't just "switch out" the boom, they're operated by a civilian company on a contract that runs to 2035. They're not UK sovereign airframes.
The UK government is already committed to operating F-35Bs for decades to come, and these 12 aircraft replace 12 F-35Bs already planned for in the next procurement package.
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.
If I have to give an educated guess I would say it's due to the logistics of maintenance for the Eurofighters.
> 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!
Would that not be covered under the UK-EU Free Trade Agreement or the UK-EU Security & Defence Partnership?
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.
> Eagle's answer to this was that other NATO countries would be able to refuel the RAF's F-35A fighters, which of course there will be absolutely no problem with during a period of crisis or conflict.
Yeah, with Japan joining, I'm at least a little hopeful that it will prompt a little more positive action from the government to loosen the purse-strings a bit to get things moving again...
The Typhoon and the Rafale are 4.5 gen, because they focused less on stealth which is just not as big a priority for Europe. But they are very much comparable, and I believe refulable from RAF. That said there is a 6th gen in development, FCAS, but there where delays, which is always the case.
> What do you mean "for europe"? Many European NATO members are buying stealth F-35s because for them stealth is a priority.
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.
Bingo. This would appear to be a ludicrous waste of public money. Useless planes built by a competitor/potential adversary that can't be refueled, designed to carry bombs the UK won't have full control of, at a time when the UK pretends that it can't even afford its current miserly welfare programmes.
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.
We really need to up our defence game by not requiring collaboration with other countries or companies.
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.
Possibly, but this is very expensive.
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.
It's probably not possible anymore. One problem in the US, and presumably the UK and other first-world countries, we've lost not only the ability to make things, but we've lost the ability to make things used to make things. For instance, we need machine shops that no longer exist (with machinists that no longer exist, with training programs that no longer exist) to make machines used to build more complicated parts. We've been outsourcing it to China because it was cheaper and now they have all that expertise (despite the shabbiness of some Chinese products, some of their products are absolutely not-at-all shabby).
We did this to ourselves and some people got very rich doing so and it's in their best interests that this remains the case. These same people may claim to want to bring this expertise back home, but really, they want to bring it back, but continue to make even bigger profits. Politicians cry about it on the evening news, but they just want to make campaign promises that will be thrown out as soon as a political donation is made. Workers want it, but without training by people who don't exist, its not possible.
We are screwed, we did it to ourselves, and there's no unscrewing it anymore.
There's no unscrewing it quickly. If we could execute a decades-long plan (we can barely execute a quarter-long plan so that seems unlikely) the information needed exists, it's "just" a matter of having people learning how to implement it again & building the needed equipment. And that's largely an economic problem, and thus politically infeasible. But the skills were invented by people who didn't have training from others in how to do those skills, it's not inherently impossible to re-develop them, especially since there's documentation on a lot of the skills. It's just difficult, slow, and expensive.
We are screwed, we did it to ourselves, and we're not willing to pay the cost to unscrew it.
It would be nice if the maker movement could have more impact. While it is an interesting avocation (and sometimes much more), it is not widespread enough to have a major impact. Also, it is not exactly a low-cost sort of thing (I guess it could be, I just haven't seen those examples yet).
This is simply not true. Did you walk any US, UK and other first-world countries factories? A lot of them have separate machinist shops with tens or hundreds of machinists who can make pretty much anything given materials and time. Even every other small factory has a machinist shop where all kinds of things are made including whole machines, parts, improvements for existing machines, etc. In my small town there are two small modern machinist shops that can make anything you want. Look around and see if there are any factories or small shops and ask if you can take a look. You would be amazed by locally made high tech you see and what can be done.
I'm not really sure when and where the "we've lost the ability to make things" came from?
I agree that other countries caught up though.
We haven't completely lost the ability to make things that make things and yes, there are machine shops in factories across the US. But how many of those machine shops have the equipment and expertise to completely produce the machines necessary to make a, for example, car, from carburetor to computer chips, without going outside the US. An increasingly large number of foundational products are being made in other countries and shipped here for assembly (and even that is being outsourced now).
Note: I should mention that I'm actually mostly OK with this - I don't have a huge issue with globalism. What I do have an issue with is people who claim this is a horrible, horrible situation while these same people are the ones who put us in this condition and continue to profit from it, without attempting to actually fix it, and expecting someone else to step up and fix it.
The ferry fiasco (which I am impacted by), is the classic case of government overreach and too much bureaucracy.
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.
> 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.
Indeed - the UK needs to rely more on home grown solutions. No harm in using foreign components/expertise to make progress, but we have to constantly strive to achieve self-reliance. This may never happen, but the trajectory needs be in that direction.
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.
“Self reliance” in military terms is overrated because it means redundancy which increases costs and sourcing everything domestically means missing out on comparative advantage of different countries). The UK doesn’t have nearly enough colonies to source materials anymore.
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).
The tradeoffs depend a lot on how reliable the external dependencies are. Sourcing from Europe seems pretty low risk high reward for the foreseeable future. Relying on the US seemed really safe 10+ years ago but is much less so currently. If I were any non-US country right now I wouldn't want to find myself in a war critically reliant on US resources.
Agreed - all I'm saying is we have to keep trying. There are benefits in just trying to achieve an almost impossible goal.
Citation needed.
In a world of scarce resources, how you choose to invest is incredibly important.
France has its own independent military production including jet fighters (Rafale), tanks, ballistic missile, nuclear submarines and nuclear heads.
> We really need to up our defence game by not requiring collaboration with other countries or companies.
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.
> 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.
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.
In fact UK car companies WERE soot covered factories (eg Jaguar and Land Rover) as recently as the 1990s (when Ford bought them and completely upgraded their production lines).
The UK going alone on military equipment:
> 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
> Chohbam composite tank armour
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
and that is wrong morally/politically/national pride; we should re-industrialize and pronto.
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?
> 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.
I actually welcome the United Kingdom’s growing economic dependence on its neighbours and other countries. Greater interdependence can hopefully moderate HM Government’s belligerence:
* Lowering the appetite for more illegal expeditionary wars and the untold civilian cost that comes with them,
* Curbing military and diplomatic support for the Israeli genocide in Gaza,
* Leaving UK-controlled territories such as the Chagos Islands, overseas military bases, and Northern Ireland, all of which suffer endless human rights abuses under HM Government,
* Curbing arms sales to authoritarian regimes with dire human rights records, like Saudi Arabia, Cameroon, Egypt, and of course, itself.
Ordinary British citizens would also benefit. Fewer taxes and human lives spent on foreign interventions and more resources directed to neglected communities at home.
> 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.
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.
> 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.
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.
The F-35 cannot be made without the UK. There are key components which are only produced in the UK and for which there is no secondary supplier.
Even countries happy to spend huge proportions of GDP on weapons, like Israel, cannot build a modern fighter in house.
The solution for the UK is European integration which potentially brings the money, skills and manpower to build a better plane than exists anywhere including the US.
> we could be a bit more selfish
Brexit wasn't enough for you?
Nothing wrong with a bit of national selfishness. We are too globalised now.
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?
> Do you write tightly coupled code?
I try not to, but I also try to avoid NIH.
That's a low-effort jab.
But it’s apt.
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).
It's not the size of the carriers - it's the lack of catapults that are the problem.
I mentioned the lack of catapults. But it’s both. Either a longer runway OR a catapult would support a heavier load.
Instead, UK carriers depend on VTOL aircraft, which reduces the selection of fixed wing to select from.
[flagged]
The title is misleading no? The F-35As can be adapted to use probe and drogue system the RAF uses.
https://web.archive.org/web/20120818131239/http://www.dodbuz...
The title is arguably clickbait.
The RAF could order the same F-35A+probe variant that the Royal Norwegian Air Force reportedly did.
So the author of the article is just telling porkies, because I found out the correct information after spending 2 minutes of googling.
The refueling seems like a very minor issue. In joint NATO missions, the F-35A can just be fueled by tankers operated by the US. Alternatively, if the UK intends to operate these 12 planes long term and on missions that actually require refueling, they could buy or modify one or more tankers.
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.
The subtext is that everyone is now realizing how stupid it is to be militarily reliant on the USA, and big spends like this are now under extreme scrutiny. The USA is not a reliable partner.
[dead]
> In joint NATO missions, the F-35 can just be fueled by tankers operated by US tankers.
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...
The UK is no stranger to engineering, it's not like it would take them years to build or modify a tanker on their own.
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.
It's actually quite hard to build a boom tanker; Boeing's most recently one has been a disaster for the company. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_KC-46_Pegasus#Flight_te...
"If Boeing can't do it, it must be hard", is that what you're saying? Are you implying that Boeing is better at building aircraft than Airbus (or really anyone else)?
I said absolutely zero of thise things. I said building a boom tanker is hard.
Sorry about the misunderstanding. It sounded like "so hard that even Boeing has problems", if you see what I mean.
> 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...
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.
> This is the entire point of NATO, complete interoperability between forces.
How is it interoperable if you cannot refuel your own planes ? Sounds like the opposite of interoperability to me
This is a problem of RAF, they're at fault for not getting their hardware in order, everyone else can do it fine.
> Since the RAF's Voyager fleet lacks the boom-type system required by the F-35A
Because 1 component is incompetent doesn't change the point of NATO integration.
This came up with Isreali Jets too, the RAF have known about this but seem to be doing nothing.
> https://afwerxchallenge.com/media/download/303d097876348381d...
> https://www.difesa.it/assets/allegati/58377/allegato1annesso...
Section : 3.4.5. Fuel delivery methods
These standards are implemented elsewhere in NATO. Infact the RAF might be the ONLY ones not capable.
Edit for clarity on missing boom fuel syste,.
next question: should it be counted on for such things as "being able to service and operate our planes"
What is the benefit of nuclear sharing for European countries? The sites where the nukes are stored will attract Russian strikes and you don't have the launch codes.
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.
> What is the benefit of nuclear sharing for European countries? The sites where the nukes are stored will attract Russian strikes and you don't have the launch codes.
I guarantee you the Balkans countries that joined NATO would LOVE to have that problem instead of the current problems they have.
My first reaction is - why should the UK be launching US-made nuclear weapons?
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...)
That's probably one of very few options available quickly.
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.
> 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.
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:
Why does the UK need an option available quickly?
I think it does not and this is just pandering to the US.
The narrative is of a looming war with Russia, necessitating rapid rearmament.
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.
It's hard to take this "looming war" with Russia seriously when WWIII didn't happen during the USSR times when Russia was much stronger. It's hard to believe that Russia would want to start WWIII now when they didn't then and when they have shown that they were highly struggling in Ukraine (and they struggled in Chechnya, too).
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.
Now, specifically for the UK, again I think this is largely pandering to the US to attract favours (tariffs, etc)
I think, sure, while Russia is fighting in Ukraine, they would really struggle to attack elsewhere.
But were they to win, which is not that hard to imagine, they would suddenly have a war-time economy and suddenly able to move troops to another border. Russia is always making threats, most recently Putin said at a Russian Economic Forum that "wherever a Russian soldier's boot stood, belongs to Russia".
As for fearing NATO... Russia was always good at salami tactics: take a slice and back off before backlash mounts. If they helped themselves to Estonia, say, over 48 hours, would the US, UK and France send nukes? Send much at all? Possibly not, and Putin knows it.
None of it pertains to the "when" question, but I can easily imagine circumstances where it happens.
> If they helped themselves to Estonia, say, over 48 hours, would the US, UK and France send nukes? Send much at all? Possibly not, and Putin knows it.
They clearly wouldn't send nukes but Russian forces would still be destroyed by conventional means. Ukraine has shown that the Russian air force is weak and poorly supplied (see how the US or Israel operate from the air while Russia sends in ground troops almost immediately) so would lose air control very quickly and then be carpet bombed.
Russia is good at making threats but reality is different. In general, the really powerful don't need to make big threats all the time because they are both confident of their strengths and they know the opposition is fully aware of them, too. Putin threatens nuclear armageddon all the time because, really, that's all he has to appear strong.
I don't think Finland and Sweden would have joined NATO if this were just a pan-European power grab. They want to be separate countries. They joined because they genuinely believe that Putin has his eye on them.
That would be insane, but Putin is taking his playbook from the Cold War "madman" theory. He wants you to be guessing, which scatters your attention and misdirects your forces.
The Soviet Union engaged in plenty of proxy wars with the West, but they always avoided engaging directly with Western Europe. Putin has upped the ante by attacking Ukraine, which the West considers an ally and was moving towards a formal alliance.
That puts the madman theory in play. He makes rhetorical feints at Scandinavia. He knows the West won't ignore them, because they don't know if he's kidding.
I concur that the UK is just sucking up to the US here. The US has become a very unreliable partner and Europe needs to find a way to mollify it while they figure out how they can deal with Putin's continuous needling by themselves.
"Putin has an eye on Sweden" does not pass the most basic smell test, now even less than during the Cold War...
My take is that Sweden wanted to abandon its historical neutrality formally to fully join the rest of the "group" but needed something to make the public agree.
> which the West considers an ally and was moving towards a formal alliance.
No, Ukraine was not an ally and was not going to join NATO.
No-one even wanted Ukraine in the EU because it is so sht (dubbed the most corrupt country in Europe) before the Russian (re-)invasion and now, somehow, it should be fastracked...
This is all the usual murky, dodgy dealings in geopolitics but Europeans have lost their "nose" for propaganda in the media, especially in the West where there is no such thing, right?
> because they don't know if he's kidding*
We know exactly what their strengths and our strengths are, and they know them, too. Russia is not going to invade the EU/NATO anymore than during the USSR times. Basic common sense, again.
> "Putin has an eye on Sweden" does not pass the most basic smell test, now even less than during the Cold War...
It does pass. Invading the Swedish island of Gotland would cut off air and sea routes to the Baltics, while a ground move against the Suwalki gap between Poland and Lithuania would sever land routes. Map: https://warsawinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Balti... Keep in mind that Belarus should also be marked in red, because it hosts Russian forces and allows them free passage.
It is one of the most obvious hostile moves against the EU and NATO, and Europe clearly doesn't have the means nor the will to launch a major war to liberate the countries. Everything hinges on the US, and we all know the state of things there.
This is not realistic at all for the reasons already put forward.
You could also claim that Russia could invade Gibraltar to gain control of the entry to the Med. Or they could try to get Alaska back, why not.
This all does show the power of propaganda in mabufacturing public opinion.
Not only is this realistic, but the affected countries are taking remarkable steps to counter it. Sweden withdrew its military presence from Gotland in 2005 and disbanded the Gotland Regiment. After Russia invaded Ukraine, Sweden re-established the regiment, returned tanks and IFVs and radars and air defense systems to Gotland, and is building up a brigade-strength task force to defend the island by 2027.
Are the UK or the US prepositioning forces in Gibraltar and Alaska to repel an invasion, renovating bunkers and shelters, and making preparations to evacuate the civilian population?
Interestingly you are not replying to my points. You are only repeating what the media tell the public.
Now, it is perfectly norm0al for Sweden to secure its territory. But the narrative and policies go way beyond this and, again, my take is that Russia is just a pretext to implement those by overblowing the threat.
If anything, the media is downplaying the preparations to calm the population.
Russia is not a pretext, but the reason for the preparations. Russian actions, from invading Georgia in 2008 to annexing Crimea in 2014 and launching a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, to the current wave of sabotage, have fundamentally changed security assessments. These aren't hypothetical threats being "overblown". They're real, documented acts of aggression that have forced countries to reassess their defenses. The policies are a direct response to that reality, not an excuse manufactured to justify them.
Dismissing that as mere PR is incredibly shallow. If the Swedish government wanted a publicity stunt, they would stage a photo op, not expand conscription and form new brigades.
Not PR or publicity stunt, more like "conspiracy". I have already written that my theory is that this is to manufacture consent of the public for a push of the EU into military matters and a further power-grab of the EU over European nation states. It is not very subtle but it seems to be working nevertheless.
Yes, the problem is that those planes are useless to the UK in term of nuclear capability: They can only carry American tactical nukes, which the UK does not obviously have, and any strikes would require authorization by the US and NATO and then supply by the US.
I.e. the UK is paying to follow the orders of the US President.
This is presumably the same as the naval component - the missiles and warheads are American, and I'd be amazed if the UK can use them if the US vetoes.
Trident carries UK-manufactured warheads and is allegedly independent, even though it does rely on US ballistic missiles to carry them. Wikipedia says -
"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"
Ah, that's an interesting tidbit, I didn't realize.
This assumes the US will be still in NATO and on our side. Given that the US is now governed by Russian assets, I don't think it is even a good idea to buy American weapons at all. The UK should double down on home grown military tech.
Yeah as a British person if anything I think the French had the right idea and we need to be moving away from dependence on American SLBMs in favour of a fully indigenous programme.
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.
> Given that the US is now governed by Russian assets
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..?
Because destabilising NATO by framing it as an unfair burden is the Russian objective. You think yelling at allies to pay up, threatening to leave NATO, and undermining trust serves Western unity? Putin doesn't need puppets who wave a Russian flag - he needs chaos agents who erode alliances under the guise of tough love. Congrats on falling for the 'if he criticises Europe, he must be pro-America' bait. Textbook.
> You think yelling at allies to pay up, threatening to leave NATO, and undermining trust serves Western unity?
Yet look at the current NATO spending review:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2025/jun/25/nato-dona...
Looks like unity to me...
Only on the surface (promising a rise to 5% in 10 years is meaningless in this climate), and only because Trump is a lunatic.
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...
The classic "Europe was freeloading" line - straight from the Kremlin's greatest hits compilation. Here's the thing: the post-WWII security architecture wasn't designed out of charity or naivety. The U.S. wanted to anchor Europe under its military umbrella, precisely to prevent another arms race on the continent (you know, like the one that gave us Nazi Germany). Re-arming Europe too fast or too independently was a geopolitical nightmare the U.S. wisely avoided.
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 assumes the US will be still in NATO and on our side. Given that the US is now governed by Russian assets
Such /r/redditmoment comments are unworthy of HN.
My understanding is that F-35's come with a deployment of US personnel that hold the encryption keys necessary to program the flight computers. You're always flying these at the mercy of the US. Not to mention the dependency of modern fighter craft on a steady supply of parts.
I don't believe that is the case however since this is a very complex aircraft the only place you can get parts/service is from Lockheed and they are under US jurisdiction. If the US can force Microsoft to sanction an ICJ prosecutor then they can tell Lockheed to not service an aircraft.
Switzerland this week found out that "fixed price" does not mean fixed price. The 6 Billion Swiss francs that the purchase of 36 F35s was supposed to cost is going to supposedly cost 1.5 Billion more. [1]
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...
Always impressive just how bad politicians and public workers in general are at their job. And they will not face consequences.
Couldn't have happened to a nicer nazi collaborator country. Germany in WW2 and Russia now.
A British F-35 has been stranded in an Indian airport for over a week, post it's emergency landing.
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...
This is mostly just inheriting the weird decision making US side - navy and airforce using different refueling standards rather than some UK screwup.
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.
Kind of a misleading title, tankers just switch out the boom. If that's the best quip they could come up with for the title it makes me doubt the remainder of the reporting. Such a little thing to hang clickbait on.
The RAF tankers can't just "switch out" the boom, they're operated by a civilian company on a contract that runs to 2035. They're not UK sovereign airframes.
Airstrip One.
Why are we buying further into the US closed garden? Why pay and then ask for permission from "daddy" before we can use our own toys?
The UK government is already committed to operating F-35Bs for decades to come, and these 12 aircraft replace 12 F-35Bs already planned for in the next procurement package.
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.
If I have to give an educated guess I would say it's due to the logistics of maintenance for the Eurofighters.
> 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!
The Eurofighter programme is independent of the EU. Most gulf states either have or are in the process of acquiring Eurofighter Typhoons.
> The Eurofighter programme is independent of the EU.
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.
Would that not be covered under the UK-EU Free Trade Agreement or the UK-EU Security & Defence Partnership?
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.
> Eagle's answer to this was that other NATO countries would be able to refuel the RAF's F-35A fighters, which of course there will be absolutely no problem with during a period of crisis or conflict.
That will be because BAE Systems Tempest is crawling along with little investment.
Yeah, with Japan joining, I'm at least a little hopeful that it will prompt a little more positive action from the government to loosen the purse-strings a bit to get things moving again...
Probably a condition imposed by the US in order for the UK to avoid tariffs or to grease the wheels of other trade agreements.
Because Europe doesn't produce anything comparable at present.
The Typhoon and the Rafale are 4.5 gen, because they focused less on stealth which is just not as big a priority for Europe. But they are very much comparable, and I believe refulable from RAF. That said there is a 6th gen in development, FCAS, but there where delays, which is always the case.
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.
> because they focused less on stealth which is just not as big a priority for Europe
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
> What do you mean "for europe"? Many European NATO members are buying stealth F-35s because for them stealth is a priority.
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.
Why is this flagged?
It's not about defense it's about spending money.
Bingo. This would appear to be a ludicrous waste of public money. Useless planes built by a competitor/potential adversary that can't be refueled, designed to carry bombs the UK won't have full control of, at a time when the UK pretends that it can't even afford its current miserly welfare programmes.
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.
"I had a guaranteed military sale with ED-209. Renovation programme. Spare parts for 25 years. Who cares if it worked or not?"
So they'll be ready for Brexit, phase 2, but that's it?