Latest news with #F35
The Guardian
3 hours ago
- Politics
- The Guardian
‘Are we safe, if nuclear weapons are here?': trepidation in Norfolk village over new jets
The genteel west Norfolk village of Marham does not seem to be at the forefront of Britain's military might. A dance class is about to start in the village hall, a game of crown green bowls is under way and swallows are swooping around the medieval church tower as wood pigeons coo. 'It's a lovely, quiet little village,' says Nona Bourne as she watches another end of bowls in a match between Marham and nearby Massingham. Like many, Bourne is troubled by the news that this week thrust Marham to the frontline of UK's nuclear arsenal, in the biggest expansion of the programme for a generation. Without consultation, RAF Marham is to be equipped with new F-35A jets capable of carrying warheads with three times the explosive power of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. Bourne said: 'When they spread it all over the news that these planes are going to come here from America with these bombs, it makes you think we're going to be targeted. My bungalow is five minutes from the base.' The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament is planning a protest in Marham on Saturday. Bourne, whose son-in-law used to work at the base, is tempted to take part. 'I might join in,' she says. 'My daughter says we've always been a target here, but I am concerned. If I was younger I'd think about moving, but I'm 83, I'm not going anywhere.' Sisters Becky, 29, and Katherine Blakie, 31, are heading to a friend's house for a plunge in their hot tub. 'I read about the weapons on Facebook,' says Becky. 'It's strange to think they'll be here in little old Marham.' Becky, who works in fundraising, is annoyed that the village was not consulted about the decision. She says: 'Marham and the RAF base are intertwined so we should definitely have had a say.' Katherine, a medical student, says: 'It makes you think, 'Are we safe, if people know nuclear weapons are here?'' At this stage it is unclear where the nuclear warheads will be housed, but new jets to be based at Marham have the capacity to drop them. Wherever they are stored, the fear Marham will be a target is widespread in the village. 'Look what happened at Pearl Harbor,' says Patricia Gordon after finishing her bowls match. 'We'd be obliterated here.' She adds: 'And with Donald Trump's finger on the button, does it matter that we've got nuclear weapons or not?' But her partner, Bruce Townsend, 77, a retired lorry driver, thinks the nuclear deterrent works. He says: 'You can't give up nuclear weapons. Iran, and those countries, know damn well that if they start anything, they'll just get wiped out.' He adds: 'I feel the same about the protest as I did about people who tried to ban the bomb. It's stupid. They can't change it.' It is the men in Marham who seem more relaxed about the prospect of nuclear-armed planes on their doorstep. Chris Joice, a carer who used to work at the base, says: 'We've had F-35s for so many years, and having the next model isn't going to make much difference.' Joice is out walking a friend's dog, Millie, who has an RAF roundel pendant strapped to her collar. He is concerned about the lack of consultation: 'I'm just annoyed that all these decisions go ahead and the common man doesn't have a single word in.' He adds: 'No one needs that kind of firepower. I'd rather people rolled dice to settle their beefs.' Others are more full-throated in their support. Jim Smith, 79, a retired construction worker, remembers nuclear weapons at the base in the 1950s. 'They had them up there in 1958 or 59 when they had the V bombers. It stopped a world war then. And it's no different now.' A man on a bike who would only give his name as John recently retired as a grounds maintenance worker at the base. He says: 'They're never going to attack us. It would be Armageddon if it comes to that. So it doesn't make a shite's worth of difference worrying about it.' He adds: 'I don't mind protest, I'm a biker so I'm all about freedom, but I've got better things to do. People protesting here don't live in the real world, they should worry instead about people sleeping on the streets in King's Lynn.' Colin Callaby, 64, is out picking cherries from a tree in the middle of the village. The cherries, which he plans to turn into wine, are the sweetest he has ever known. 'We're right in the firing line,' he says, 'but if there's going to be a nuclear bomb we're all done for so I'd rather be right underneath it and die instantly than be 50 miles away and take weeks to die from radiation.' He adds: 'It's very sad that mankind has got to spend billions of pounds on mass destruction and we can't do something better with that money. But what can you do?'
Fox News
18 hours ago
- Business
- Fox News
Pentagon unveils $961B budget request: Fund for Golden Dome, missiles and drones, fewer F-35 jets
The Pentagon unveiled details of its $961 billion budget request on Thursday, a budget roadmap that may deprioritize new F-35 fighter jets in favor of next-generation aircraft and drones. The budget would reach that figure through $848.3 billion in its discretionary defense budget and an additional $113 billion through reconciliation, the "One Big Beautiful Bill" the Trump administration is trying to muscle through Congress right now. The parallel budget requests include $25 billion for Golden Dome, President Donald Trump's homeland missile defense initiative. And as the Trump administration moves forward with the Air Force's 6th-gen fighter jet, dubbed the F-47, the budget calls for a reduction in the next purchase of F-35s from 74 to 47. It requests $3.4 billion for the F-47 program. Officials are still unsure whether the Navy's next-gen fighter jet, F/A-XX, will move forward. "Waiting for a decision from the secretary of the Navy, secretary of defense, and the president," a defense official told reporters. "That's an active conversation, whether to continue with the program or not." The program will proceed right now with "minimal funding" for design, the official said. Asked whether other service branches may get a different variant of the F-47 instead of entirely separate programs, the official said the idea is under consideration. "I would say pretty much everything is under consideration to get the [tactical] air capability that our war fighters need as quickly as possible, and that's really what we're looking at the most, is the schedule of all these programs." The budget requests funding for three new Navy ships through the discretionary request and another 16 through the reconciliation request. The proposed budget seeks $197.4 billion for the Army, $292.2 billion for the Navy, $301.1 billion for the Air Force and $170.9 billion defense-wide. In the Air Force budget request is $40 billion for Space Force, a 30% increase from fiscal year 2025. The unusual budget structure, which officials classify as "one budget, two bills," is part of a broader $1 trillion defense strategy when combined with national security spending at the Department of Energy. Administration officials have been working overtime to convince lawmakers to pass the One Big Beautiful bill by July 4. The budget asks for a 3.8% pay raise for troops, and it reveals plans to cut its civilian employee workforce by 7,286 people. The Pentagon plans to continue to invest in munitions and weapons systems: the Joint Air to Surface Standoff Missile – Extended Range and Long Range Anti-Ship missile, which have longer ranges and may be more effective in the Pacific – but it seeks far fewer Precision Strike Missiles. The budget boosts spending on low-cost small drones which have proven effective in the war between Russia and Ukraine. The E-7 radar plane will be cut, the senior defense official confirmed, "due to significant delays with cost increases from $588 million to $724 million per aircraft and survivability concerns in this contested environment." In an ideal world, Congress would pass 12 separate appropriations bills before the start of the fiscal year on October 1. But in recent years, it has often punted the headache down the road with continuing resolutions, or bills that temporarily fund the government at the previous year's levels, and omnibuses, sprawling bills that contain funding for all 12 agencies in one up-or-down vote.
Russia Today
18 hours ago
- Business
- Russia Today
European NATO states wary of buying US arms
European NATO members have expressed growing unease about increasing their reliance on US weapons amid a sweeping rearmament push, Bloomberg has reported on Friday. During a summit in The Hague this week, NATO states committed to raising military spending to 5% of GDP by 2035 to counter what they described as a 'long-term threat posed by Russia to Euro-Atlantic security' – a claim that Moscow has repeatedly denied. Concerns have reportedly emerged about deepening dependence on the American defense industry, particularly under the leadership of President Donald Trump. According to Bloomberg, leaders fear they could be exposed to greater risks, especially in light of Trump's efforts to improve ties with Russia and past threats to annex allied territory. Boosting reliance on US arms has become 'an increasingly hard sell at home,' the outlet noted. French President Emmanuel Macron has long championed the idea of securing greater defense autonomy for European NATO states, urging the development of a self-sufficient military industrial base. Canada, a key NATO ally, is reportedly reconsidering its involvement in the US-led F-35 fighter jet program and may switch to Swedish alternatives. 'We should no longer send three-quarters of our defense capital spending to America,' Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney stated earlier this month. Copenhagen has also displayed some resistance, telling Washington that American arms deals have become 'politically difficult' given Trump's suggestion that the US annex Greenland, which is currently controlled by Denmark, Bloomberg reported. Unease in the alliance has also been stoked by Trump's move to cut intelligence sharing with Ukraine earlier this year. According to unnamed officials cited by Bloomberg, this decision 'alarmed allies,' as it raised concerns over how much control the US might wield over weapons exports in the event of a crisis. Nevertheless, a lack of viable domestic alternatives continues to bind European nations to US suppliers, according to the outlet. Decades of underinvestment have left Europe's defense manufacturing capacity underdeveloped. As a result, countries will likely keep buying American equipment to meet rearmament targets, particularly as stockpiles have been depleted by shipments of military aid to Ukraine. Moscow has condemned the EU's militarization trend and arms transfers to Kiev, characterizing the conflict as a NATO proxy war. President Vladimir Putin has dismissed NATO's concerns of Russian aggression as 'nonsense,' instead blaming the alliance's expansion and 'aggressive behavior' for escalating tensions.
Russia Today
a day ago
- Politics
- Russia Today
Kremlin responds to prospect of NATO nuclear-capable jets on Russian border
Russia sees Estonia's willingness to host nuclear-capable NATO aircraft as a direct threat to its security, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on Friday. Responding to recent remarks made by Estonian Defense Minister Hanno Pevkur welcoming such deployments, Peskov warned that the presence of F-35 fighter jets in the Baltic region would be considered a serious provocation. He criticized Tallinn's stance as 'absurd,' adding that relations with Moscow 'can hardly get any worse.' Pevkur told local media that F-35s, which are capable of being equipped with nuclear weapons, 'have already been in Estonia and will soon return again in rotation,' and expressed the country's readiness to accommodate allied forces using such aircraft. The Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania have hosted NATO fighter rotations since joining the military bloc in 2004. Their airspace is patrolled by allied aircraft due to limited domestic capabilities. NATO's eastern expansion has long been a point of contention for Russia, which accuses the West of breaking post-Cold War assurances. During this week's NATO summit in The Hague, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer confirmed the planned purchase of at least 12 F-35A jets, thus restoring the UK's airborne nuclear deterrent for the first time since the 1990s. Although the US, UK, and France are the only official nuclear powers within NATO, American nuclear weapons remain stationed in several non-nuclear allied countries. Moscow claims that US-led training of NATO pilots for nuclear missions violates the spirit of non-proliferation agreements. Citing the need to counter rising threats from NATO near its borders, Russia deployed tactical nuclear weapons to Belarus and held joint drills with Belarusian forces last year.
Arab News
a day ago
- Politics
- Arab News
Kremlin says Estonia's readiness to host nuclear-capable NATO jets threatens Russia
Pevkur said Estonia was ready to host nuclear-capable jets if necessaryPeskov said such a move would be an obvious threat to RussiaMOSCOW: The Kremlin said on Friday that Estonia's stated readiness to host NATO allies' U.S.-made F-35A stealth jets, capable of carrying nuclear weapons, posed a direct threat to Defence Minister Hanno Pevkur told the Postimees news outlet on Thursday that Estonia - which borders Russia and is a rotating base for NATO jets tasked with protecting Baltic airspace - was ready to host nuclear-capable jets if necessary."If some of them, regardless of their country of origin, have a dual-use capability to carry nuclear weapons it doesn't affect our position on hosting F-35s in any way," the outlet cited him as saying."Of course we are ready to host our allies."Pevkur was speaking after Britain, a NATO member, announced it would buy at least 12 F-35A jets capable of carrying nuclear warheads and that they would join NATO's airborne nuclear about Pevkur's comments, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said such a move would be an obvious threat to Russia."Of course it would be an immediate danger," Peskov told a journalist from Russia's Life news outlet. He said the statement was one of many "absurd thoughts" voiced by politicians in the Baltic region, which comprises Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania."We have practically no relations with the Baltic republics because it is very difficult to make them worse," he said.
