The UK's F-35 situation

 

The reality of the announcement: it’s not the F-35A, it’s actually TRIDENT

At present, the F-35A announcement by the UK at the NATO Summit is easily translated and summarized:

 

Since F-35A procurement cost is somewhat lower than that of the F-35B and in theory we can more easily maintain it and have it available more of the time, we are procuring 12 of them instead, replacing as many F-35Bs assigned to 207 Squadron (Operational Conversion Unit). We will train our crews on the F-35A as far as possible, and only use F-35B for the unique parts of the syllabus. By releasing aircraft from 207 Sqn and by still procuring 15 new ones, we are still going ahead with standing up a third frontline Squadron.

Since F-35A comes Dual Capable, we are seeking integration into NATO Nuclear Sharing mission planning, carrying dual-key, US owned B61-12 bombs. We will presumably send a few of the F-35A to the relevant exercises a couple of times a year.

We are not spending a penny more than strictly needed as this is literally born as a Saving measure.  Forget about any UK tactical nuclear weapon, forget about storing the bombs in Marham (that would cost a lot in infrastructure) and forget about fixing the air to air refuelling problem.

Maria Eagle, asked during Urgent Question time in the House of Commons specifically on these points, confirmed that as “it is a NATO mission”: any UK F-35A long range mission will depend on allied tanker support. She also confirmed that "this decision is not a stepping stone" towards wider tactical nuclear plans. The UK is "not looking" at “broadening range of nuclear weapons and delivery means".

 

Scratch away the hype, dig to the facts, and while other countries announced new brigades, new SAM batteries, new jets, ships, etc, the UK really took to the stage to say: "we are saving some money off on jets for the OCU Sqn and, so long as you furnish us the bombs and air to air refueling, we can help carry a few of the warheads".

 

B61-12 launch trials. 

The only reason why Starmer wasn't laughed out of room at the NATO Summit while delivering such an announcement is that UK has a Strategic Deterrent of its own, which other double-key B61-carrying european partners don't have. In theory it puts a TRIDENT other than the US one behind the B61s.

As we know, after all, multiple NATO countries have F-35A to carry double-key B61-12s and had them before this UK stunt. They thankfully even have tankers which can actually air to air refuel said F-35A and anti-radar missiles & other weapons that give those F-35A wider capability and meaning.

Germany, Italy, Belgium, Netherlands and Turkey all have an established role in Nuclear Sharing and all but Turkey are acquiring F-35As for it, carrying American B61-12 bombs. Poland, which has 32 F-35A on order, has already expressed interest in being involved.

And of course, the US own F-35A Squadrons in Europe, and beyond, are available to carry the bombs as well. Most important for the UK perspective are of course the 2 USAF F-35A Squadrons in Lakenheath, which is where B61-12s could be stored on UK soil.

In practical terms, the 12 F-35A in theory added by the UK are almost entirely meaningless. They are few, don’t come with air to air refuelling of their own, and add to a vast fleet of potential carrying aircraft which would have no problems absorbing not only every last B61 stored in Europe but the entire stock of 200+, including the ones stored in Continental US (CONUS).

B61-12 bases. 

Inert B61-12 inside an F-35A's weapon bay. The F-35C's weapon bay has the same size but there was no B61 integration program because the US Navy has been out of the tactical nuke business since the early 2000s. 

More delivery aircraft are the very last thing needed. The one thing the UK adds here is actually TRIDENT. None of the other NATO countries depending on tactical B61-12 has a Strategic Nuclear Deterrent to loom behind the tactical warheads, apart of course from the US one.

Unlike France, the UK already declares its strategic deterrent to NATO, formally offering it to SACEUR, and by integrating in the Nuclear Sharing arrangement it is technically "supplying" a TRIDENT other than the American one to loom behind the B61s.

There is an argument to be made that the government announcement has been deliberately misleading on a political level: it's not so much the UK that is acquiring a new lever of deterrence; it is arguably supplying Trident to Europe. 

 

It’s tenuous, obviously, because the B61-12s are going nowhere without US authorizations and collaboration, and while the warheads on the UK TRIDENT are sovereign, the system as a whole does not stand without cooperation with Washington. But the political message is still valuable.

  

Value in a split fleet?

In pure money terms, the F-35A is effectively cheaper than the more complex F-35B and it’s also pretty realistic to expect its availability will be a bit higher on average.

There will be, as claimed, a short-term saving in terms of aircraft purchase, although the differences between the two aircraft and the need for a separate stock of spares etc will immediately eat away some of the savings.

The cost cutting measure will initially work, we can be reasonably sure of it.

Longer term, I’m pessimistic. Pain will inexorably pop up later whenever type-specific upgrade differences and material differences force duplications with their related costs.

It's also obvious F-35A as training jet can do most, yet not all the training of crews for the B fleet. 

 

When it comes to generating aircraft for operations, the two mini-fleets will generate their own entirely non-compatible pools of Force Elements At Readiness (the aircraft and crews actually ready to fly missions): the F-35A cannot contribute to carrier air at all; the F-35B cannot contribute to the nuclear mission.

 

The value of F-35A beyond the "training role with secondary nuclear mission" is very close to zero, if the number does not grow well above 12 over time and a number of other things aren’t funded and fixed.

 

The optimists are always quick to note that F-35A can fly a bit further on Internal Fuel and has weapon bays that are 14 inches longer than the B’s (no Lift Fan in the way) so can carry larger weapons internally. That makes them perfect for “Deep Strike”, is the usual justification offered.

However, that is only theory. In practice, the F-35A in the RAF will in fact not fly further than the F-35B. Whatever little advantage it brings in internal fuel range is completely drowned out by the RAF's inability to refuel them in flight, which Minister Maria Eagle already confirmed is not being fixed.  

As you should know, the RAF has access to up to 14 excellent A-330 MRTT tankers, the VOYAGERs, but none of them is fitted with Boom, which is what is needed to refuel USAF aircraft, including the F-35A.

The VOYAGER fleet is split in KC2 aircraft which have only the 2 drogues in pods under the wings; and KC3 aircraft which add a centreline drogue which enables the refuelling in flight of A400M.

 

A VOYAGER KC3 refueling an A400M with the centreline drogue 

The F-35A has a receptable on the spine and needs a Boom-equipped tanker to take on fuel in flight. The UK fields no such equipment. 

The centreline drogue is the one used to refuel the big receivers, which would in the past have included NIMROD (MRA4 and R1) and E-3D SENTRY. Unfortunately, over the years things have evolved the way we know and now the only big receiver left is A400M. P-8 replaced NIMROD MRA4 and needs a Boom, RIVET JOINT replaced R1 and needs a Boom (a special arrangement is in place with 100^th Wing USAF at Mildenhall to access their tankers so RIVET JOINT can go places) and E-7 replaced E-3. C-17 could also be air refuelled if the RAF had a Boom tanker.

 

In practice, the RAF literally has more platform types that it CANNOT refuel than ones it can. It's 4-3 right now (E-7, P-8, Rivet Joint, C-17 versus Typhoon, F-35B and A400). 5-3 with the F-35A.

The F-35A problem could also be fixed “laterally” by adding a probe onto it. Space reservation does exist in the fuselage, but it's the second poorest decision just above the current "doing nothing at all": it would make UK F-35As heavier and more expensive and, of course, all the strategic big receivers would remain unable to get fuel in flight.

Although the option exists, nobody took it. Those who have F-35A have Boom equipped tankers, and vice versa. 

Fitting probes rather than acquiring Booms would also mean the UK would continue to be severely limited in providing air to air refuelling support to Allies, which is not great when the 14 VOYAGERs represent a large percentage of the total number of tankers available in Europe and widely known to be insufficient.

 

There are glaringly obvious strategic reasons for acquiring Booms, the most obvious of which is the 143 F-35A in the "Nordic Air Force" (Norway, Finland, Denmark) that sits right between the UK and Russia. That powerful force is short of tanker support, and one of the best joined-up things the UK could possibly do was helping out with that by putting Booms on VOYAGERs to help THEM stay in the air and hit deep into Russia, while helping its own (and allied) P-8s to guard the North Atlantic and E-7s to deliver airborne early warning.

Instead, it is purchasing 12 F-35A that exacerbate the scarcity of tankers while bringing nothing tangible to the table.

 

The optimists assume that more F-35As will follow in the future. I’m not at all sure they will and I’ll explain exactly why, but if they do, expenditure to retrofit Booms on the VOYAGERs must be part of the plan.

 

Why am I so sceptical of the possibility of more F-35A Squadrons following?

Money, timelines, infrastructure, personnel.

 

What has been done right now is taking existing Tranche 2 procurement plans for 27 new F-35, which have been in the works since 2022, and split them into 12 A and 15 B, not adding a single extra jet.

Tranche 2 plans as known to spread the purchase and deliveries all the way to 2033 and at the moment we have been given no indication whatsoever of an acceleration.

In theory, in 2035 GCAP/TEMPEST will be entering service. Even assuming F-35 assembly lines will still be happily going by that date 2035, GCAP will be absolutely bleeding the budget dry.

It is not overly difficult to imagine GCAP not being ready by 2035, but that does not change the picture much: it will still be devouring a huge share of the budget, making it extremely difficult to imagine the RAF being still busy building up F-35 Squadrons by then.

 

Tranche 1 deliveries should conclude this year, in theory. The last of the first batch of 48 F-35Bs for the UK are coming out of Production Lot 17.

In theory, Tranche 2 buys could begin right away with Production Lot 18, the definitive contract for which is expected really soon. Lot 18 and 19, in fact, were due to have a combined contract award announcement this very month, so either it comes on Monday or it has slipped slightly.

 

Long Lead orders covering most of the material (and cost) for production lots 18 and 19 have been signed at various dates from December 2022 onwards.

The US DoD doesn't break down allocation of jets by country when announcing those orders and MoD/UK Gov in their usual mud-like clarity haven't provided info about when Tranche 2 starts.

 

At present we do not know for sure whether Lots 18 and 19 include any UK jet at all or whether there is a gap before new orders are placed. Tranche 1 ends with Lot 17 but it's not clear if T2 starts right away in Lot 18 or gap was/is expected.

We can only go by hints and clues: as funding for Tranche 2 was delegated to the RAF in early 2022 and the very first Long lead Items contract for Lot 18 was eventually awarded in December the same year, the assumption is that the UK is involved.

 

We do not yet know the full composition of the Lot 18 and 19 orders. Lot 18 Long Lead contracts were awarded in 2023 for a total of 147 jets, but the latest contract modification on 20 December 2024 only had 145.

In those 145 there was a single F-35B for “partner nations” and 7 F-35Bs for Foreign Military Sale nations. The 7 FMS ones should belong to Singapore and Japan, but the lone partner B is for the UK or for Italy? Given precedents, the 2 jets partly funded through earlier awards could be Italian ones, to re-emerge as contract modification later (it’s already happened in the past that timelines diverged somewhat), but we do not know.

So 0, 1, 2 jets for the UK...? We will have to see. Even if they were 2, that’s still clearly not a quick procurement pace at all.  

The exact same uncertainty exists for Lot 19 as well.

IF there are UK jets in lot 18 and 19, they are almost certainly going to be F-35Bs.

In fact, some significant Long Lead order has already been placed for Lot 20 as well, and if the UK funded anything in that, it will have been for B aircraft, again.

In practice, there are good chances that the first UK F-35A only happens in Lot 21, which roughly equates to order in 2027 and delivery in 2029.

Maria Eagle, speaking in the House of Commons, says the government is “hopeful” the first F-35A deliveries can happen “before the end of the decade”, which sounds like a confirmation of sorts.

 

It doesn't matter one bit how many times politicians insist on talking about 138 jets. Unless the next lots show a substantial acceleration in procurement rate, it's not going to happen. 

We have already been told, including by Chief Defence Staff himself, not to expect much for circa 2 years. Virtually nothing “new” is coming before 2027 at earliest, simply because no actual new money appears before then.

The only realistic hope of a greater F-35 fleet beyond 74 jets in 3 Sqns plus OCU lays in a drastic acceleration to the purchase rate beginning in FY2027. I don’t see how you can build any other Sqn otherwise.

The known plan of “27 jets by 2033” implies spreading the order across a minimum of 8 Lots, 18 to 25. Lot 25 would be ordered in 2031, and deliveries would wrap up in 2033.

If 2033 was actually the year of last order, we’d be looking at a spread across 10 Lots and last deliveries in 2035, indicatively. That means an average purchase rate of 3.3 jets a year in the best case, 2.7 in the worst.

In the kindest way possible: if the procurement rate stays at those levels, forget any fantasy of more Squadrons. You will be deep into GCAP funding era by then.

 

What if more Squadrons were to happen?

I want to make one thing clear: I have nothing against the F-35A in isolation. I know about the larger bays, I know about the greater range on internal fuel. You don’t need to tell me things that, respectfully, I’m likely to know better than you do.

The problem with a split buy from a UK point of view is that the number of jets and the number of Squadrons are not large enough to make a split buy sensible. The end result is a B fleet too small for what it has to do and an A fleet also too small to make any real difference.

 

3 frontline Squadrons are the complement of a single carrier, and they would only ever all deploy in a major emergency, of course.

3 Sqns are the size the JAGUAR fleet was withdrawn from service at. 2 Sqns is the size the HARRIER GR9 fate was sealed at. It’s not wise to have these numbers at the beginning of a long service life. Those are end of life numbers.

I do not think a split of 3 and 1 Sqns is in any way smart, period. 3 and 2 is also not very good. I’d rather have a single fleet type of 5 Sqns to generate force elements from, frankly. The individual characteristics of the airframe type are little more than a distraction when all other factors are considered.

 

Moreover, we have already seen this movie multiple times in UK defence history, and the end is always sour. Two fleets locked into fratricide battles each time there’s a need for concurrent but fleet-specific upgrades or other expenditure result in disasters. We have seen it again and again and again, most recently with SEA HARRIER and HARRIER GR7 and then with the contrast HARRIER versus TORNADO. To get into that position again for no good reason is absurd.

 

Any “deep strike” advantage F-35A brings is only theory, for the UK. It is only theory because if the Air to Air refuelling situation is not cured, F-35A will actually be far shorter legged in practical terms than F-35B. Nevermind the fact you can sail F-35B thousands of miles closer to whatever you need to hit.

 

The weapon bays advantage is also pure theory. At present there is not a single weapon, in service or planned, which fits the F-35A’s weapon bays but not the B’s. It either fits both, or is too large and fits none.

The F-35B could carry 1,000 lbs stores, but the UK does not have any bomb larger than the 500 lbs Paveway IV at this point.

Does it help anyone that F-35A could potentially carry 2,000 lbs stores?

No, unless new weapons are procured. There is nothing in the UK arsenal or existing plans that can take any benefit.

 

Also, any weapon integration process will be at least partially duplicated, to account for the differences between the two aircraft types. METEOR integration, for example: the UK is leading the F-35B process, with Italy leading for the A.  

There is a very real risk that the UK F-35A will have to partially repeat integration work (and expenditure) just to “port” Paveway IV and ASRAAM across from the B.

I have a suspicion, unconfirmed for now, that as long as the whole buy is 12 aircraft for the OCU, the UK won’t even try to get ASRAAM and Paveway IV cleared on the A.

Also, of course i suspect no ammunition will be procured for the 25 mm gun, considering gunpods for the B fleet have not been procured at all so far. 

 

The external "heavy load", innermost pylons are rathed for the same loads, so the F-35B should be able to carry Future Cruise and Anti-Ship Weapon externally, just like the F-35A. Internally, it won't fit either. AARGM ER, JSM, 2,000 lbs guided bombs could give a sense to the larger bays on the A, but none of these weapons is in the RAF arsenal nor in its plans. 
There might (or might not) be a possibility for the A to carry 6 rather than 4 Meteor internally, but we don't know. 

And there is yet another issue, in terms of infrastructure: RAF Marham has "obvious" room and Hardened Aircraft Shelters sufficient, with modernization work, for taking 4 Sqns. Project ANVIL fixed the South HAS area for the needs of 207 and 617 Sqns; the much delayed Phase 2 to finally go under contract next year is going to focus on the East HAS area to finally give 809 NAS adequate infrastructure and, hopefully, to prepare the space for the 3^rd frontline Sqn, which will also be the fourth Marham sqn (207 OCU, 617, 809 and the as yet unnamed Sqn to come).

Can Marham take more? Possibly, but without HAS (there are only 24 in total, each can take 2 jets once modernized) and with the need for further, substantial and expensive infrastructure work.

The alternative, even more expensive, is to activate another F-35 base.

 

Project ANVIL was heavily focused around the South HAS area. We expect the new contract to be centered on the East HAS area. The potential for squeezing more Sqns into the base to avoid activating another is unclear. 

In short, an expanded F-35A buy, in order to make even just one lick of sense, requires:

 

-         Not only buying more jets, but buying them much faster, to avoid going into "full conflict" with GCAP’s own funding needs just as they reach their peak

-         Adding Boom to VOYAGER

-         Procuring new weapon types, otherwise the larger weapon bays will mean absolutely nothing in practice

-         Infrastructure spending potentially including activation of a second operating base

 

Unless the Defence Investment Plan in Autumn has something serious to offer in regard to these needs, the infamous “138” F-35 number will almost certainly remain fantasy.

 

And in absence of Booms and adequate weapons, the F-35A is in fact of no substantial relevance for any “Deep Strike” mission you might try to imagine.

 

And that is if we completely ignore the wider issue of substantial duplication and inefficiencies that come from running 2 small fleets, and the risk of another fratricide relationship ending in tragedy a few years into the future.

 

None of the problems are impossible to solve. But for the specific UK situation, they are very unlikely to be solved, and that’s unfortunately what matters.

The ministry of stealth budgeting and stealthier cuts

Thanks to the MOD’s sales service, we have just discovered that the Royal Navy has been robbed of yet another precious capability, with the untimely demise of RFA Diligence, the Forward Repair Ship. She is now on sale, ready for further use in the hands of a new owner.

She is in good conditions despite the many years of age, having received constant updates and adjustments over the years, which have included an improved ballast water treatment plant purchased in 2014. She completed her last refit in March 2015… and left service, according to the sales brochure, in May 2015.

Congratulations, MOD! It is not the first time that money is wasted to refit a ship which is then immediately after removed from service. In recent times, it has been the fate of RFA Orangeleaf as well. But this does not mean that the practice is any less demented and offensive.

The cut of RFA Diligence is probably the stealthiest in many years. Sthealtier still than the cut of 2 of the Point class RoRo transports, which took place merely months after the SDSR 2010 had specifically said that all 6 would stay in service. There have been no messages, no ceremonies, no news, no explanations. Only silence.

Nobody knew that RFA Diligence had gone out of service. It was known that she was in port since may 2015, but the assumption was that the RFA had put her “in pause” due to the well known shortage of manpower.

Even the MOD itself seems to have missed the cutting of RFA Diligence, since they replied to a FOI in December 2015 saying that her Out of Service Date was 2020.

The following is a very interesting article about RFA Diligence, her capabilities and her role, from Marine Maintenance Technology International, September 2015 issue.

RFA Diligence Article by Liger30 on Scribd

Yet, she is gone. And a replacement is nowhere to be seen. Considering the capability she offered, it is a big loss.

In the meanwhile, another interesting FOI offers actual numbers to back up the coloured but un-detailed graphics of the 10 year Equipment Programme. This, together with the annual publication on the MOD Major Projects status, makes it possible to play a little bit of math. Open all three documents, and follow me in this puzzle-solving game. 

The FOI’s table offers a more readable breakdown of the Equipment Budget, showing:

-          Money reserved for the launch of new procurement (it does not break down the share destined to support of said new equipment); separating between committed and uncommitted funds. Uncommitted funds are not yet tied down by a contract.

-          Money for In Service Equipment (so, basically, the cost of supporting what is already in service), again in Committed and Uncommitted form.

-          Money for procurement, which is the expenditure on ongoing programmes

Taken alone, these numbers are interesting and impressive, but do not tell the story. What is this money paying for? What margin exists for procuring new kit? Is the situation so desperate that it requires losing a ship as cost-effective and capable as Diligence?

The MOD does not provide the information required. Compare the “10 Year Programme” and all other sparse documents published by the MOD or about the MOD (NAO reports, namely) to the defence budget documentation produced by France, USA and even Italy, and you’ll see that the MOD is as transparent as a thick plate of steel painted solid black.

We only have indications about costs and performance of a handful of selected programmes, and always one year after the budget is determined. The MOD publishes an Excel spreadsheet, annually, detailing the status of the major programmes in the previous Annual Budget Cycle.

The document published this July, in fact, is composed of data from September 2015.

The NAO report works in similar fashion.

Other programmes never get detailed: we are not told what is their in-year cost, nor we are told how much kit is ordered in a set year, and how much kit is taken in charge in the year.

France and US are particularly good at reporting these information. Italy is a bit less detailed, but each year it is possible to read a good document saying how much money is going to go on programme X during the year. The MOD gives no comparable information.

Joining the FOI data with the Excel spreadsheet, though, it is possible to compose a decent picture of the Royal Navy’s equipment budget situation for the year 2015 / 16.

In 2015/16, the Royal Navy has been given, for Surface Ships:

54 million for (eventually) starting new procurement processes for new kit (money uncommitted)

529 million, committed, for supporting equipment in service

302 million, uncommitted, for support to equipment in service

1009 million, committed, for ongoing procurement

310 million, uncommitted, for ongoing procurement

The Excel spreadsheet offers information on in-year expenditure for several programmes. Specifically:

Queen Elizabeth class procurement, 712,93 million

Carrier Enabled Power Projection studies, 1,44 million

Tide class tankers, 194,98 million

Type 26, 222,3 million

The budget allocated in year can be underspent or overspent, depending on how things go. The Excel document contains also the forecasted actual expenditure, most of the time slightly smaller than the allocation.

Adding up the budgets above, however, the total goes well above the Committed 1009 million. The Uncommitted money is not money available for procuring additional kit, but merely money that isn’t yet tied to a specific contract.

If we consider Committed and Uncommitted money together, we reach a 1319 million total. There is in theory a 187,35 million margin, but of course there are programmes we aren’t given details about. For example, the procurement of the River Batch 2. Its cost is 348 million spread over N years, where N is pretty certainly not less than 4. However, the spread of expenditure is not equal, so 348/4 is only a wild estimate.

Again, the Royal Navy also committed 12,6 million (over how many years?) to the ATLAS combined sweep demonstration programme; and a further 17 million (over how many years, again?) for the MMCM system being developed jointly with France.

All things considered, the margin, at the end of the day, is nonexistent. It would be very interesting, instead, to learn what happened to the 54 million for wholly new procurement. It is a small sum, but a non insignificant one. And this year the amount is 80 million, yet, the Royal Navy is reportedly going to lose Scan Eagle, because there is no money to buy the currently contractor-operated systems; nor to renew the current deal; nor to launch the new Flexible Deployable UAS the Royal Navy had hoped to start. This is puzzling, but we simply do not have the information needed to paint a better picture.

The Submarines budget is another interesting area. The FOI gives:

77 uncommitted millions for new procurement, and 15 committed

194 uncommitted and 1663 committed for support to existing equipment

684 uncommitted and 1628 committed for ongoing procurement.

Detectable expenditure in-year in the Submarines budget is given as:

638,65 million for Astute

170,5 for the Nuclear Core Production Capability

770,41 for Successor SSBN

37 million for the Spearfish torpedo upgrade (might actually fall in the Complex Weapons budget line, though)

1085,43 million in costs for AWE Aldermaston, its new infrastructure developments and the Nuclear Warhead Capability Sustainment Programme which is replacing the non-nuclear components of the MK4 warheads to turn them into MK4A.

Again, the total go well above the committed procurement funding, and above the total obtained adding the uncommitted money, too. The most likely explanation is that a big share of the AWE costs actually fall into the Support to in service equipment voice, considering that it is expenditure connected to kit and infrastructure already in use.

It gets more complex with the other services, as the data is even more fragmented and incomplete. The Excel sheet does not provide info on in-year Typhoon expenditure, so Combat Air calculations could only be incomplete.

The simple fact that it takes this kind of research, guessing, reasoning and puzzle-solving to compose a picture of the situation is a sign of just how badly the MOD works, and how much is done to make cuts such as RFA Diligence’s unfortunate departure invisible, or almost so.

The detail about requirements and future purchases is inexistent, and even when the SDSR documents say something, you can expect something else entirely to happen (see the Point class event, or the fact that the “up to six OPVs” in the SDSR 2015 is already turning into “5”, with only of the River Batch 2s replacing HMS Clyde even though the ship is still very much young).

My first plea to the new government is to clear up this mess, and make MOD plans less stealthy. This constant scamming and book-cooking is unhelpful when it is not offensive. This absolute lack of transparency is a shame that needs to be ended. 

A good alternative to SSBNs...?

A new proposal has been put forwards as an alternative to the Successor SSBN programme which is due to produce 3 to 4 new submarines as replacement for the current Vanguard class, with entry in service beginning in 2028. The effort is known to the general public as "Trident replacement", but it is a very misleading name for the project, as what needs replacement is the submarine, not the Trident missile.


Successor - a quick summary 

The same Trident 2 D5 missiles currently in service will continue to be used at least out to 2042, so it is most definitely not a matter of replacing Trident. The warheads are also good out to 2032 at least, as they are subject to a life extension programme which brings them to MK4A standard. A decision on an eventual replacement is not expected to be required before the late 2030s, and it is to be assumed that, if possible at all, efforts to eventually replace the warhead and the Trident missiles themselves will be coordinated in the 2040s.

The four Vanguard submarines, on the other hand, can no longer be life extended safely and effectively. Their useful life has already been stretched and the first of the class is now due to soldier on until 2028, but it is assessed that extending further is not desirable.
Main Gate for the Successor programme, which will finally place a formal contract in place for the acquisition of 3 or four new generation submarines, is planned for early 2016, but design activities and procurement of key long lead items (included the new PWR3 reactor core and the special steel for the hulls) are already underway, with a spend ceiling of 3.3 billion pounds by 2016. As of december 2014, 1243 million pounds have already been committed. Notably, 206 million are for the upgrading and restructuring of the Barrow shipyard facilities which are key to the UK's ability to build submarines, and the usefulness of this investment goes beyond the Successor itself.
The new PWR3 reactor, more advanced than the current PWR2, builds on very significant amounts of technology shared by the United States. Its features include a far longer unrefueled service life (the american equivalent reactor project for their own new SSBNs aims for a 40 years unrefueled service life, versus a target of 25 years for the PWR2) in order to minimize in-service costs during the life of the vessel; and enhanced safety.

In October 2014, a notable long lead contract has been placed, with a 59 million dollar contract signed with General Dynamics Electric Boat for the production of the 12 Trident launch tubes for the first SSBN. The US Department of Defense, in the same contract, has ordered a first batch of 5 tubes for its own SSBN.
This unprecedented level of collaboration is part of the Common Missile Compartment initiative. The CMC is being designed in 4-tube modules which are then integrated into the submarine at build: 3 sections will form the british CMC compartment (12 tubes in total, down from 16 in the current Vanguard class), while the US SSBN will have four sections (16 tubes, down from 24 in the current Ohio class).
The first 4-tubes module should be assembled beginning in August 2016; the first launch tube is expected to be delivered for installation in the module during November the same year. The 1st Quad Pack module should be completed in April 2018, with deliveries of all the 17 tubes currently on order completed by November 2017.
Initially, it had been thought to "future proof" the tubes by producing them with a 97 inches diameter, but this idea was shelved to save money, and the diameter will stay at 87 inches: whatever missile eventually replaces Trident 2 D5 will have to share the same diameter.

Other design features of the british SSBNs aren't yet known in detail. A CGI image released by the MOD suggests that an X configuration for stern control surfaces is being planned, like in the US for the SSBN(X). Despite having less launch tubes, the new SSBN is expected to be as large as the Vanguard, and possibly slightly heavier. Growth is being contained, however, with the aim of reducing to a minimum the need for infrastructure changes in Faslane and Coulport. What is good for the Vanguards must be good for the Successor as well.
In a similarly pragmatic decision, according to 2013 data reports, the Successor will draw largely from the Astute class SSN, sharing the same sonar and combat system, the same torpedo tubes arrangement and the same mast sensors. A Common External Communications System is also being acquired, which will use the same launcher and Comms buoys for both Astute and Successor.
It has been suggested that much of the crew will be able to seamlessly transition from SSBN to Astute SSN at any time, due to the great commonality.

As part of budget cuts, the SDSR 2010 has mandated a new round of reductions in the number of warheads and operational, embarked missiles. Currently, the Vanguard class SSBNs deploy at sea with no more than 8 Trident missiles equipped, in total, with 40 warheads. Each Trident missile can be fitted with up to 12 warheads, so the current totals are far, far reduced from the original 16 missile / 192 warheads load envisaged for the Vanguard. The number of operational, availlable warheads has also been reduced, to a maximum of 120 (was 160 before the SDSR), our of a total of 160 (was 225 before SDSR). 

The Trident 2 D5 missiles are exactly the same used by the US Navy. Indeed, the UK has access to up to 58 such missiles (not clear if the few expended in trials over the years have been replaced or not), which are maintained as part of the US Navy's total. To safeguard the independence of employment of the deterrent, the nuclear payload is british.

For comparison purposes, France maintains a total of 300 nuclear warheads; three sets of 16 submarine-launched ballistic missiles for it's four SSBNs and 54 air-launched ASMP-A missiles.

Even with all these measures to contain costs and achieve maximum efficiency, the Successor programme remains expensive. The December 2014 update to Parliament assures that the programme for now promises to respect the original 11 to 14 billion pounds pricetag set in 2006. Adjusted for inflation, that means 14.21 to 18.09 billion pounds in 2014 money (Bank of England calculation). We will assume a price range between 15 and 20 billion pounds for four submarines as a measure of prudence. A price which, of course, many charge of being still too optimistic.


Centre Forum steps in

Toby Fenwick, former Treasury and DfiD civil servant as well as RAF Intelligence reservist between 1995 and 2009, has written a paper, published a few days ago by Centre Forum, to argue for the abandonement of the plan for a continuation of Trident and a cancellation of the SSBNs, in favor of an air-dropped nuclear deterrent which would cost less and deliver much greater conventional capabilities in exchange for a diminished nuclear arsenal.

The list of recommendations made by the document are the following:

It is evident at first read that the nuclear arsenal resulting would be much weaker than the currently planned one, but at the same time it is evident that the proposal would bring much enhanced conventional military capability in the air and at sea.

The proposal is to adopt the free-fall B61 nuclear bomb, which is deployed in Europe as part of the NATO Nuclear Sharing deterrence concept. The B61s are tactical, free fall bombs meant for supersonic carriage, and a part of the arsenal is made available to allies for employment on their own aircraft: for example, Germany and Italy have Tornado IDS squadrons with a nuclear strike role, and the F-16 is also used. Other B61s forward stored in Europe are available for use by USAFE aircraft.

The B61 exists in several different variants, but the US has launched a costly refurbishment programme which will leave only one type of weapon in operation, the B61-12. This is obtained employing the B61-4 variable yeld warhead and introducing a new tail kit which, while not adding actual precision guidance, dramatically improves accuracy on the target and gives a modest "stand-off" range in a high speed toss towards the target. Some 480 bombs in total will be refurbished, at a cost estimated between 10 and 12 billion dollars.
The B61-12 is to be integrated for internal carriage on the F-35A.

A B61-12 being tested in the wind tunnel

The proposal is to seek integration of the B61-12 on the F-35C as well, which is physically feasible since the weapon bays have the same size (not so with the shorter bays of the F-35B), so that RAF and Royal Navy can procure 138 F-35C, to be used as dual capable aircraft.

The document also contains indications on the expected price of the proposal, which to be workable requires considerable investment in conventional capabilities surrounding and enabling the deterrent.

It is to be appreciated that the document keeps track of the need for aircraft carrier embarkation and delivery in order to make the deterrent capable to strike back against any enemy, and that it consequently makes provvisions for enhancing the surface fleet to provide more appropriate escort, adding more Type 26 frigates and Hawkeye radar aircraft.

It is also good to see that the author did not ignore the need to provide Barrow with more SSNs to buy in order to keep the yard active and it's key skills alive: one of the roles of the Successor programme is also to bridge the gap between the construction of the Astutes and the future project for their replacement. Years and years of inactivity destroy the workforce and squander the precious skills required for building submarines. It is a lesson re-learned at the cost of much money and great delays to the Astute project: after years of inactivity, the design team ended up having to ask the americans for help in order to finalize the Astute's design. So, if SSBNs aren't built, SSNs must take their place, or the cost could well be the loss of the nation's ability to build any at a later date.

The passage to catapults for the carriers brings an evident boost to capability and is required since only the F-35C can hope to carry the B61-12 internally. The purchase of Hawkeye is key to giving the air wing  and the carrier itself the survivability they need.


The problem

A nuclear deterrent based on the B61-12 would be much less capable than Trident, this is definite. The key issue is not the power of the warhead, but the certainty that an enemy anywhere in the world can be reliably hit. Any possible existential enemy of the UK must be keenly aware that there is a credible deterrent which is unquestionably able to strike back and make him pay a price which cannot be possibly accepted.

The reach of the B61-12 is the main problem. The document says that F-35C launched from UK bases could strike 2500 nautical miles away with Voyager tankers support, and goes some way in explaining how, using british bases overseas and the carrier's air wing the reach can be made sufficient to strike virtually anywhere. There are obvious difficulties with such a scenario, and there is pretty much the admission that any delivery flight would be more or less a suicide.
Then again, if it ever came to flying a real nuclear bombing mission, coming back to base might not be an option anyway.
The key, as always, is not doing it for real, but showing in a convincing way that it could and would be done. The deterrent must be credible in the sense that an enemy must be convinced that cornering the UK would result in a devastating nuclear revenge which would make any conquest ultimately futile. The deterrent must represent an implied, unacceptable price to pay that forces an enemy to drop the idea of acting in the first place. If we get to the actual use of nuclear weapons, it means the deterrent has failed, even if it later succeeds in delivering nukes on enemy towns.

A number of B61-12s hitting major enemy towns and installations would represent a cost too high to be accepted, by anyone and in any circumstance, even if the target hit wasn't the enemy capital itself. On this i can agree.
Where the credibility gets shaky is in the delivery. A Voyager tanker can trail 4 fighter jets for 2800 miles in a transfer flight, but an actual stike mission, especially if a return to base is at least envisaged, is a whole different matter. Even bringing all 14 tankers in service (instead of just 8 + 1 transport only and 5 tankers "on demand" at 90 days notice) and fitting them with booms and receptacles so they can juggle fuel between themselves and work cooperatively, it remains dubious that it would be possible to trail a real strike package over the great distances likely to be involved. Particularly because, in order to deliver the strike with gravity-fall bombs with a stand-off reach of 40 kilometers in the very, very best case, you need a large attack squadron, knowing that many aircraft are likely not to make it to the target, even with the F-35's stealth.

Would it ever be possible to make this construct credible enough to serve its purpose? 

At one point the document talks about a snap launch of 72 aircraft in the space of little more than 2 minutes in answer to a detected nuclear attack. But it is clear to me that there could never be 72 aircraft at readiness, never mind at a 2 minutes readiness, not even if there was a significant "warning" period of worsening international situation beforehand. And moreover there would never be enough tankers to trail them to a distant target anyway.
Besides, if the vast majority of the improved tanker fleet and of the larger fighter jet fleet are tied into nuclear readiness, the potential advantage they bring in terms of conventional capabilities is lost because they aren't available for other missions. If the end result is having less tankers and less aircraft readily available for conventional operations, the whole idea is self-defeating.


Costs

The idea falls apart further when costing is examined with greater attention. The procurement of 100 "anglicized" B61-12 weapons might be simply impossible, at least in the terms envisaged in the document. The B61-12 is built by refurbishing existing bombs, and there is only a finite number of them.
It would of course be possible to purchase the new Tail Kit, which is a new production element, but all the rest, and not just the warhead, would likely have to be new. This calls into question the timings and costs estimated.

Moreover, the document assumes a 30% cost increase for the Successor programme based on the Astute's earlier mentioned troublesome birth. The assumption that costs will grow is admittedly pretty realistic, unfortunately, but i cannot help but question the method. It seems a bit unfair to inflate the cost by 30% right away, and base the comparison on this figure. A 15 to 20 billion programme cost is assumed in the document and then brought up to a 24.8 - 33.1 billion affair. Sincerely, i find this skews the discussion. Expecting cost growth and doubting of estimates is one thing, but this seems way excessive.

Again, the document assumes that building 5 more Astute SSNs will cost 5 billion pounds or less, while also enabling the adoption of the PWR3 reactor, or at least of part of its technological improvements. It seems to me like a shot in the dark. You can't assume unchanged or indeed diminished pricetags for an SSN if you also assume that you will change its very heart, the nuclear reactor. It would seem only fair and prudent to me to assume that trying to take in PWR3 tech would require quite some design work, and consequently costs.

The purchase of 138 F-35C is also described as a saving of over one billion. But this is sadly unjustified, simply because the UK does not have a budget for 138 F-35B as of now. Not even close. So, even assuming the F-35C as effectively cheaper to purchase and to operate, several billion pounds are missing from the count.

The purchase of 8 P-8 Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft for 700 million pounds also look like a miracle to me, considering that Australia is going to pay 3.6 billion USD (around 4 billion AUSD) for the same amount of the same aircraft (and the supporting elements and infrastructure, but it is not like you can leave those out of the picture). It is a mistake i've already seen in other occasions: you can't just take the unitary price tag from a US multi-year mega contract and expect your purchase to come at that same price. What about spare parts, training, support, infrastructure, and everything else?
I wait to see how much Japan will pay for the 4 E-2D Hawkeye it has ordered, but i sincerely believe 900 million pounds might well prove insufficient. 

Modifying the Voyager tankers with booms is something that could indeed be done in a few months per airframe, and probably with a modest investment. But adding in the receptacle might not be as simple, and the cost suggested, i fear, is likely again overoptimistic.

The C-2 Greyhound is no longer in production, and the surviving examples are high in demand in the US Navy. Moreover, even if some could be acquired, the US Navy has estimated that their useful life will expire by 2028. A refurbishment programme which would replace the wings, the engines and the avionics and make them more common to the E-2D has been proposed, but the US Navy has not been convinced and has instead decided to procure 44 MV-22 Osprey for the role.
The document also suggests converting the Greyhound to serve also as tankers to extend the range of the F-35C embarked squadrons, but this has never been done before. I would suggest that the US Navy would have already done it, if it was that straightforward.
The MV-22 will have a tanker kit by 2017, and the navy variant, HV-22, is likely to be fitted with external, conformal fuel tanks which would also increase available fuel to give away... but this is another story, and would have a whole different cost from what the document proposes with the C-2.

I think there is too much optimism regarding infrastructure as well, since counting on old 1969-era structures dating back to the V force seems a bit risky to me, but i'm not able to make an estimate myself.
What looks clear to me is that there is no real consideration given to the greater manpower and annual budgets which would be required by having far more squadrons of jets than planned, more tankers in continous service, more SSNs and more frigates. Even assuming that current SSBN-related personnel can cover completely or almost completely the crewing needs of 5 new SSNs, i think a lot is missing from the picture.


Conclusion

The boost to the conventional forces that an air deterrent would bring is certainly tempting. If the costing was realistic and actually feasible, i would sincerely be tempted to support a proposal like this. The credibility of the deterrent would be menaced, but i think it could be made to stay at a reasonable and thus acceptable level: i would like to think, after all, that no country in the world would consider "a few nuked cities" as an acceptable price to pay in any scenario. My way of thinking suggests to me that the demonstrated ability to deliver nuclear strikes at range, even with difficulties and limitations (it would never be the same as a 10.000 miles Trident missile launched literally out of the blue, where you can't touch it beforehand) would be enough, if balanced by such a healthy increase of conventional firepower as a byproduct.

The problem is that to stay credible, the air deterrent would tie down almost entirely those additional F-35C squadrons and, critically, the Voyager tankers. To deploy them on conventional operations will dramatically reduce the capability of the deterrent, and to keep them at nuclear QRA means badly hurting conventional capabilities. 
And moreover, the cost estimates seem to be wide off the mark, making the whole thing unachievable in the shape and budget proposed.

In the end, the SSBN once more remains as the most cost-effective and most credible deterrent solution.