Well USA uses freefall bombs, Russia does and I assume UK too so idk about that
7 Likes
Need is a strong word we posses a very capable SSBN and a new design is 5 years away from hitting the water, it’s also the wrong word. This was probably to appease the current US administration.
Those specifically are saying that those 12 F-35A are for nuclear deterrence
Maybe to avoid the use of heavier payloads from SSBN Astraea missiles,… or at least to add those kind of weapons on board HMS Queen Elizabeth II Carrier Class.
Please tell me they’ll use missiles and not dumb bombs, those are so stupid
That’s doctrinally what the US has done, and as the UK are buying US jets, it’s probable they will have to use dumb bombs.
Anyway, UK nuclear deterrence is not really the subject of the thread
1 Like
True, kinda sad… nuke missiles like the ASMP-A are much cooler than dumb bombs
Issue is certification, nuclear certification for a US bomb on a none US airframe takes a long time.
F-35 will already be certified for USA nuclear bomb.
Perhaps Typhoon could be certified for ASMP-A depends if it’s worth having 2 different nuclear delivery systems.
1 Like
it’s not,… the intention of RAF are quite clear:
Joinning the NATO Nuclear Deterrence program (which is B-61 based), at the lower possible cost (since they already bought several F-35’s for RNAF, it will reduce some maintenance costs) - by creating a Nuclear Squadron
the integration of ASMP-A/ASMP-R on EF-2000 would require much more investments than previous and chosen option.
This is the last i’m going to say on it here before moving to another more relevant thread if you’d like to continue as @vizender is right. Any more and it’s best to move to British Weapons Systems, I apologise, I just couldn’t resist making a dig at the chronically intellect devoid decisions of the British MoD.
They are actually being purchased through short sighted idiocy because they can be used as cheaper training airframes, at the expense of higher numbers of B’s. The nuclear stuff is all nonsense made to cover up a cost-cutting measure.
There’s no strain on the SSBN’s as they are always prioritised, the B’s on the QE’s can’t take B61 its not integrated and knowing how much of a lemon the B is probably doesn’t even fit in the bay.
They are going to be children and use US B61 bombs yes, because its not as if like 4 other NATO nations have the same jets with the same bombs, that all require US approval…
Not even a cool factor, they’re just more capable.
ASMP-A/R is not an option.
What makes sense is to scrap this dumb F-35A purchase and instead finance an Anglo-French tactical nuclear missile likely based on the upcoming FC/ASW, specifically the RJ10 variant/STRATUS RS as thats quite close to ASMPA-A. Perhaps a merger of the two.
Then it will fit on Rafale, Eurofighter, Tempest and FCAS, whilst retaining actual operational control for either nation, having range, having tactical utility and it means not having to buy a whole new aircraft (that’s not even good and plugs a non-existent gap).
5 Likes
For the likelihood of a dumb bomb nuclear strike we could have kept 4 Tornado Gr.4s in service…
spending a large chunk of our military spend on F-35A just to carry a nuclear weapon is ridiculous.
Surely this would be added once the rework of its motor happens.
1 Like
The report for the rework of the motor got shot down due to “restricted sources” despite said source being publicly available at a US military library for anyone to walk into and rent for a few weeks.
Mica really gonna be nuking everything even more when the devs get around to implementing this stuff eh.
Also I wonder, if the mica em standard is 100km, then what is the range of mica em ng
140 km, not bad. around same range of aim 120c-5 irl, though it’s only 15ishkm more than aim 120a max range irl (125km)
1 Like
Also kinda surprised that range only improved by 40 percent with dual pulse.
When r77m gained dual pulse, its range improved by around 70 percent (though it also lost its grid fins)
Same story for I derby er that had 100% increase in range when switching to dual pulse (50 to 100km)
Isn’t the AIM-120C-7 25km in vertical launch? The MICA NG EM is stated by MBDA to be just over 40km in vertical launch.
This puts the MICA NG more in the realm of the current implementation of IRIS-T SLM’s range. It could be that the MICA NG is in the AIM-120C’s range in air to air because of battery limitation, than kinetic limitation.