PDA

View Full Version : The Death of our Forces


Churchills Ghost
15th Jul 2013, 09:47
Trident fleet may be cut to two subs in new Lib Dem plan - UK Politics - UK - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/trident-fleet-may-be-cut-to-two-subs-in-new-lib-dem-plan-8708328.html)

It keeps getting worse.

In the 90's people didn't believe there was any threat to the UK and that the military would never be needed to defend our isle so it was only a matter of our involvement in overseas campaigns and which the lefties felt was a useless exercise in any case.

My question is this; do you really think that Britain will never ever again have to defend her sovereignty?

Doomers and gloomers predict yet further financial troubles over the coming decade, a worsening of Christian-muslims relations, greater sectarian conflict and areas of social breakdown within the UK not to mention an increasing divide between those who oppose and those who support Brussels.

Either way, no matter what we believe one thing is clear, someone wants Britain left unarmed and powerless.

It stinks!

500N
15th Jul 2013, 09:53
"Either way, no matter what we believe one thing is clear, someone wants Britain left unarmed and powerless."

I was wondering the same thing today when reading an article
about the EU Police force !

I think you are right.

Churchills Ghost
15th Jul 2013, 09:58
Europol has (since 1996) possess powers of arrest and detention among all EU member states enabling them to potentially arrest anyone without providing any evidence of a crime having been committed (in other words to be arrested on suspicion alone) and to hold that person for up to 6 months at the end of which they still do not need to provide any evidence whatsoever - only suspicion.

Were you aware that Europol (many years ago now) moved into the former Gestapo headquarters in the Hague?

Heathrow Harry
15th Jul 2013, 10:14
"My question is this; do you really think that Britain will never ever again have to defend her sovereignty?"

Using DEFEND in relation to a nuclear war is a bit much - all they'll be defending is a pile of ash (but no doubt my local estate agent will bill it as "new improved views in all directions")

The question is do we still have a DETERRENT with 2 subs?

personally I suspect the actual cost of 3-4 will be much the same as 2 and you then don't have to worry when some "right-hand down a bit" merchant parks 50% of our deterrent off Broadford or hits one of our allies underwater

Heathrow Harry
15th Jul 2013, 10:15
"Were you aware that Europol (many years ago now) moved into the former Gestapo headquarters in the Hague?"

BP had an office there for years - they always wondered why they never got many visitors ..................................... :hmm:

GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU
15th Jul 2013, 10:25
At the risk of Thread drift, a pal (ex brown job) e-mailed this to me yesterday (3 years late but he was a drop-short); Joys of Muslim Women by Nonie Darwish - Urban Legends (http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/religion/a/joys_of_muslim_women.htm)

Bollox or not, the Lib Dem plan could prevent our "weapons of mass destruction" falling into the hands of a rogue Muslim State.

Heathrow Harry. We currently have 4 boats and you are right; the through life costs for 2 boats wouldn't be that much lower than that of 4.

Fox3WheresMyBanana
15th Jul 2013, 10:44
Does anyone know the cost of reverting nuclear defence to some WE177s strapped to GR4s or Tiffies?
Dispersal locations would be needed, but need not be permanently manned. Keeping a couple of HASs and access to the concrete at old Cold War airbases would probably do it.

kbrockman
15th Jul 2013, 10:46
If you think the UK situation is bad, have a look around mainland Europe where many nations are doing far worse, the NATO rule of 2% of GDP spending on defence is something many nations haven't been doing for many years now.

All that being said , I'm also convinced that most defence departments have partly themselves to blame for this.
Defence spending is unpopular as it is, certainly with so many years of peace in Europe, if then the DoD's spend a large proportion on overly complicated and hyper expensive weapon systems that have a hard time justifying themselves it won't do any good for their reputation of being responsible using the (still) substantial defence budgets.

I've seen enough to know that too many people in the defence sector (both government and industry) suffer from overinflated ego's and unrealistic ambitions , all this coupled with an unhealthy urge to be involved in big projects that are complete overkill doesn't do any good for the defence reputation among the rest of the nation.

Still, I think a minimum of 2% should be a reasonable goal, provided spending is being done more with their heads iso their dicks.

Not_a_boffin
15th Jul 2013, 10:48
Does anyone know the cost of reverting nuclear defence to some WE177s strapped to GR4s or Tiffies?
Dispersal locations would be needed, but need not be permanently manned. Keeping a couple of HASs and access to the concrete at old Cold War airbases would probably do it.

I imagine that's one of the ideas the LDs had. If you hold on till the middle of the week when their report is published, they'll tell you how much it is and probably why it was dismissed.

Churchills Ghost
15th Jul 2013, 11:51
Not re-investing in a nuclear sub is one thing but, the consistent decimation of our Armed Forces can only have longterm negative effects in terms of political stability, employment and, ultimately, our ability to back-up any threats/promises we make as a nation.

We are already at that point but to take it any further will make our ability to exert any kind of significant political influence .. mild at best!

Is this really what we want?

Obviously, the answer for some is yes!

Coupled_To_Me
15th Jul 2013, 13:06
Trident fleet may be cut to two subs in new Lib Dem plan - UK Politics - UK - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/trident-fleet-may-be-cut-to-two-subs-in-new-lib-dem-plan-8708328.html)

It keeps getting worse.

In the 90's people didn't believe there was any threat to the UK and that the military would never be needed to defend our isle

Gerry, Martin and the Sinners would agree with you, I'm sure :p

newt
15th Jul 2013, 13:23
I love the bias of the BBC on this matter. They interviewed a former Admiral of the Fleet and asked him if Trident should be replaced like for like!!

You can guess the answer!!

They should have asked him what is the threat?

I say, scrap it now and spend the cash on conventional air and sea defence of the UK! We need fortress UK with much tighter border security! Not strategic nuclear submarines which only serve to make the Navy more important than the other services!

Any volunteers for Dad's Army?:ok:

Postman Plod
15th Jul 2013, 13:37
Maybe it's just me, but I think I'd rather have shedloads of conventional forces to fight the wars we're actually fighting and going to have to fight, than concentrate our forces on 4 boats full of missiles that are of no use when the threat is "stateless" as it effectively has been for the last 13 years. Frankly, I doubt Trident is going to deter any extremist fundamentalist terrorist organization or dysfunctional fundamentalist nation, and those are the threats we're looking at.

BUT you can't uninvent nuclear weapons.

If we need to consider using our nuclear deterrent, then it's already too late.

Thomas coupling
15th Jul 2013, 14:01
GBZ: Steady.......spreading race hate does you no favours. As the analysis states the comments are very generalised and targetting minorities.

On the subject of reducing the nuke subs. The good news is it is a Lib based doctrine which should fetch a couple of chuckles but nothing else, fear not.

The real decisions are colossal though aren't they:

Build your conventional forces at enormous expense and find that they only come in handy if someone actually invades the UK. Too late then, one might say:eek: The alternative uses for them is:
(a) Invade someone else.......Mmmmm, are we really in that business of occupying another country at the unacceptable cost of losing thousands of our troops in the process? Or,
(b) mass employment!

The nuke option:

Build your nuke forces at enormous cost and find they only come in handy if someone invades the UK. Too late then :ugh: Do we really want to nuke our own country??
Nuking other countries isn't going to happen unless you are prepared to go the full monty and follow it up with some kind of gigantic humanitarian rescue operation???

However - as part of a combined force (NATO etc) where local tactical nukes can be used (cruise missiles / drones etc) might be the closest "fit" for a 21st century conflict. Damage is localised and temporary, offering to take on and seriously damage the most geographically difficult and/or mobile threat (like a terrorist organisation).

The future has to be much more clinical, methinks.

4 subs (1 permanently in dock), each with 30 or 40 cruise missiles and a couple of squadrons of drones with nuke capability should see us through the next 50 years. Add to that the syphoning off of mil money into cyber defence and there you have it...................:suspect:

Not_a_boffin
15th Jul 2013, 14:55
1. Trident / CASD is not there to deter the current (relatively) transient threat from islamonutters. It is there to deter the enduring capability of nation states with nuclear (or other WMD tipped) ballistic missiles. That capability is actually expanding. All that is needed to turn that capability into a threat is intent.

2. If we need to consider using our nuclear deterrent, then it's already too late Correct. But funnily enough it has deterred state attack vs the UK and NATO for sixty years or so, the last forty-odd of them CASD.

3. 4 subs (1 permanently in dock), each with 30 or 40 cruise missiles and a couple of squadrons of drones with nuke capability should see us through the next 50 years. Add to that the syphoning off of mil money into cyber defence and there you have it Congratulations. One assumes that you have invented the Money Tree in order to afford development of a nuclear-tipped sub-launched cruise missile with appropriate penetration capability, not to mention a new non-ballistic warhead design. However, I think you may require a money-tree thicket in order to develop a drone that can be trusted to deliver a bucket of instant sunshine in the sort of environment in which we might need one.

Make no mistake. Any "savings" culled from CASD will not be put to enhanced conventional defence capability. They will be swallowed up in the enormity of the rest of the state budget.

Lima Juliet
15th Jul 2013, 15:08
Any volunteers for Dad's Army?

Newt - I'm already in. FTRS serve to age 60+ these days :ok:

LJ

Heathrow Harry
15th Jul 2013, 16:10
thomas

the idea that you could fire off a few N weapons and only have "localised" damage went out around 1960........

I guess the question would be where would we use these tactical nukes

the S Atlantic - unlikely

Middle East - not if you want to keep the lights on

Europe - how to make friends and influence people - and you'd better sure of the weather forecast

Africa - nothing worth bombing

Russia - I think not

GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU
15th Jul 2013, 22:59
strategic nuclear submarines which only serve to make the Navy more important than the other services!


I think you may have misspelt impotent. As things stand, it looks as if the V Boat replacement and the Trident continuation programmes will be funded from the Navy's own budget, not a central Strategic Weapon one. We are already down to 19 DD/FFs and no Carriers in order to fund the, err, Carriers.

Thomas coupling: you read it? all? Regrettably my humour doesn't always translate well.

NutLoose
15th Jul 2013, 23:33
On the MSN website, a poll running, basically says it all

vote now
Would you vote for a new party of labour?

29997 responses

Yes, we need a change
15%
I would stick with the Labour party
13%
I would vote Conservative
17%
I would vote Liberal Democract
1%
I would vote Ukip
36%
I would vote for another party
5%
None of the above
13%
Back to voting

Going by that, the Lib Dems have as much chance of affecting squat as my anus has of healing over..
They can prostitute themselves across as many parties as they want, trouble is they have nailed their colours to the flag in full public view and people can now see what one would get if they ever got into a position of power again..... And frankly they have been allowed to punch well above their weight since the last general election.

One gets the feeling they will rapidly become a none entity at the next elections...

phantomstreaker
16th Jul 2013, 08:04
Nutloose,


you do make my mornings much more tolerable :ok:

Thomas coupling
16th Jul 2013, 08:13
Conservatives (you know - those people who actually make the decisions) just stated on radio 4 that the Lib Dem suggestion about reducing nuke subs by half was reckless and naive. That's that then, let's move on now.

Not a boffin - where did I say nuke tipped cruise missiles?

Heathrow - smell the coffee. Tactical nukes are still here matey - take a look at the RAF/Army inventory. They never went out of date.

Scenario:
S Korea wakes up one sunny morning to find themselves engulfed by over 1 million N Koreans swarming over the border. All attempts to halt the surge fail using conventional efforts.
The Yanks wouldn't blink twice over using local nuke tipped missiles and shells to slow the surge.
NATO have the same mentality I would expect.

The problem with going nuke early is that it is an emotional decision. It takes into account the survival of your country, payback, settling old issues. The economy/finances/society - as we know it does not come high up on the list of preservation at the time the decision is made to go Nuke.

It really is Armaggedon after the tactical stage - hence why this (tactical) stage has to be deployed first because there is time for a rethink by the receiving force!

Andu
16th Jul 2013, 08:24
If the UK (or damn near any Western European nation) ever does find itself in a 'backs to the wall' situation again, I think the only thing you could be sure about is that it will face a 'fifth column' crisis from within its borders that will make Spain in the late 1930s (where that term was coined) look like a tiny, solitary insect blot on the windscreen.

History has shown that all empires eventually fail or fall. I can't help but feel that there were many thinking people in the Holy Roman Empire around AD300 who felt very much the way I do today as they watched their once great civilisation imploding and the barbarians, not at the gates, but allowed inside them in increasing numbers by worthless, self-serving politicians, ripping the guts from that civilisation as they took, took and took without giving anything in return.

The Roman Legions, stationed at the edges of the Empire, found that the heart of the Empire they were defending dissolved into nothingness as more and more of the State treasury was re-directed to welfare and circuses to keep the hoi pilloi diverted and happy.

Sound familiar?

Heathrow Harry
16th Jul 2013, 08:27
which way to the orgies? :}

Not_a_boffin
16th Jul 2013, 08:41
Not a boffin - where did I say nuke tipped cruise missiles?

Er, here

However - as part of a combined force (NATO etc) where local tactical nukes can be used (cruise missiles / drones etc) might be the closest "fit" for a 21st century conflict

and by implication, here

4 subs (1 permanently in dock), each with 30 or 40 cruise missiles and a couple of squadrons of drones with nuke capability

While we're on the subject, perhaps you'd like to tell us which "inventory" you're privy to...

Tactical nukes are still here matey - take a look at the RAF/Army inventory

Whenurhappy
16th Jul 2013, 10:36
N-a-B,

You beat me to it. I seem to have this dim, distant memory of WE-177s being withdrawn in 1998, which is backed up by scurrilous publications such as Hansard. Perhaps Thomas the Tank Engine 'souveniered' some when on SD 814?


I think we need to know...

4Greens
16th Jul 2013, 14:33
There is no danger of being nuked by Russia or China as they will be wrecking their own property.

Lima Juliet
16th Jul 2013, 14:38
I stumbled accross a WE177 at Halton once - it was a dummy one for the supplier's school. I think might still be there or in the Trenchard Museum.

LJ

GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU
16th Jul 2013, 14:45
There is no danger of being nuked by Russia or China as they will be wrecking their own property.

Ah but wait until their property is worth bugger all and they want their money back.

Whenurhappy
16th Jul 2013, 15:05
There was a We 177 in 1-N of Main Building, lurking amongst the DSTL staff. I presume it was a drill or dummy one...but i don't recall a FFE certificate...

Frostchamber
16th Jul 2013, 15:12
I think NAB summed things up fairly neatly at post #15. The only faint risk I see in all this is that, in the interests of savings and showing a steady downward drift in UK nuclear arms, they compromise on three boats. That would require an unrealistic dose of consistent good luck to maintain CASD, and miraculous good luck in the final quarter of the boats' lives.

Danny42C
16th Jul 2013, 15:53
I am a simple soul. I ask one question:

In August, 1945, if it had been known that Japan had possessed an atomic bomb, and had a credible means of delivering it to the US mainland, would Truman have sanctioned the drop on Hiroshima ?

I have an abiding interest as I was on the ground out there at the time.

D.

thing
16th Jul 2013, 18:04
Probably not. But if they had the bomb and a means of delivering it I think they would have had no qualms about doing so long before the Americans.

By the way there's a 177 at the Yorkshire Air Museum at Elvington.

NutLoose
16th Jul 2013, 18:48
Been there seen it and..... Kicked it Thing... Explained to bemused folks nearby that when in the RAF one couldn't even pass wind in their presence, without causing an incident.. :)

There are a couple at Cosford next to the Valiant as well.

ExAscoteer
16th Jul 2013, 19:26
And one at Hendon next to the Tornado.

Just This Once...
16th Jul 2013, 19:44
Last time I saw the one on display at Main Building someone had stuck a big red button on it.

smujsmith
16th Jul 2013, 20:27
I'm just an old bloke who served between 1969 and 1997. I went from an RAF that was the nations nuclear deterrent to an RAF that supposedly now has little or no "deterrent" effect (it all being Submarine based these days). Interesting to see some opine that we (the RAF) still have some capability, but where ? The only point of a deterrent is that if you keep it secret, it ceases to be a deterrent.

I am equally certain, in my own mind, that possibly returning the nuclear deterrence to the RAF, even if only in a tactical role, would be considerably cheaper than the 4 sub new build system as currently proposed. The modern aircraft offers the ability to deliver a "package" far more reliably than in the early days of the concept. Particularly when your target may be a terrorist base, in a relatively non aligned country. Either way, its an expensive tool to have in your kit, but if the threat is constantly shifting, requiring planning change, retraining and adaptability, I for one would back an air based tactical nuclear deterrent in preference to a part time submarine based mega expensive boondoggle.

Smudge :confused:

cornish-stormrider
16th Jul 2013, 21:04
Anything other than a ballistic warhead coming in is liable to interception, add in the time factor to get it on scene.....

Do I sleep soundly knowing there is a boondoggle?
Does not make a difference that way but I'd rather keep it and a like for like replacement

And we can dismiss all the bull about we cannot launch without American approval.

Also, who is to say the size of the sunshine bucket is big.
Look at how far we have come tech wise in the real world in the last 20 years

The only thing wrong with nukes, other than having them is the o,d rotting hulks left behind

And is anyone naive enough to really think any money saved from the Bombers will stay in defence,

Nope neither do I

Squirrel 41
16th Jul 2013, 21:17
I've just read the "Alternatives" paper, and full marks to the team that did it - a good and thoughtful analysis that comes back to where we started: in effect the choice is 4 boat CASD vs nuclear threshold status.

The drafting masterclass is on p. 23, paragraph 36 which concludes:

The readiness of UK nuclear forces becomes more critical as hostilities rise. Changing the readiness of forces during a crisis can be challenging. Whether intended or otherwise, an adversary could perceive changes in posture or readiness as a sign of firm hostile intent. As a result, changes in posture in a crisis could contribute to miscalculation. Because of the fear of how changes might be perceived by an adversary, a government could find itself inhibited. This is not unique to alternative systems, however. This problem applies to all non-continuous postures.

So in order to save what Danny Alexander said (if I understood correctly) was £4bn through life (or about 3.5% of the bill over 30+ years) by going to a part-time "deterrent", then you actually make things rather more dangerous in a crisis. Sounds like a sensible policy then, well done.

Interestingly, the LibDems aren't at one on this. Their thinktank's boss published this (http://www.libdemvoice.org/the-independent-vie-trident-when-two-into-four-doesnt-go-35172.html) a couple of weeks back - attracting the ire of former MinAF (Harvey) in the comments section. (Surprised he's got the time, actually.) Despite his grumblings, looks like the thinktank analysis was pretty much spot on.

Interesting times!

S41

Cpt_Pugwash
16th Jul 2013, 21:50
Unless it has been moved in the last year, there is a WE177 in the atrium of NH4 at Abbeywood, complete with FIAM.
Also, one in the small museum area at Aldermaston, as you might expect.

Edited due to poor memory:\

GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU
16th Jul 2013, 22:44
smujsmith; you make a number of good points. The problem with a tactical big stick, though, is that you probably need a bigger strategic big stick to back it up.

If we think "nuclear proliferation", our argument against it is diluted if we offer a nuke as a threat to someone who hasn't got one.

The Government needs to make a basic political decision: do we stay a nuclear power (with a place on the UN Security Council) or not. if the answer is yes, let the professionals in uniforms define what's needed (brown uniforms need not apply) and fund it accordingly. Importantly, though, make it "new money", not at the expense of the poor buggers who get the short straw.

Easy Street
17th Jul 2013, 00:57
The Government needs to make a basic political decision: do we stay a nuclear power (with a place on the UN Security Council) or not.This is an oft-repeated red herring; I don't see Israel, Pakistan or India with permanent seats. The only way we can be removed from our permanent seat on the UNSC is for the UNSC to pass a resolution to that effect. We could veto any such resolution, regardless of our nuclear status, and Blighty has never been the kind of turkey to vote for Christmas. Perhaps the other nations might apply pressure - to which an appropriate response might be "la la la, louder, can't hear you".

dctyke
17th Jul 2013, 08:42
The best thing about WE 177 was that nobody ever bothered you whilst you were loading them, not of that 'is it ready yet' rubbish. And no visitors, a nice big policeman outside the HAS door saw to that!

As for Trident? Often asked myself in the cold war days, if we had a referendum which would you choose. Do you want to be part of the warsaw pact or live (if you were lucky) in a nuclear wasteland. And remember, the other side got the same bull**** as us in reverse, we were the one's going to invade the eastern block.

Basil
17th Jul 2013, 09:12
if we had a referendum which would you choose. Do you want to be part of the warsaw pact or live (if you were lucky) in a nuclear wasteland
Well, Hitler knew that we would not give in but that didn't stop him.
Fortunately MAD worked - and that nice Mr Kruschev gave me a career :ok:

cornish-stormrider
17th Jul 2013, 15:08
Talking about it with folks, various who served before and during my pitifully short 8 yrs of japery we all agreed that if the balloon went up it was cold beers on the roof of the HPS and watch from ringside some jaw dropping physics in action.

I saw threads as a boy - even re-watching recently gives me shivers.
if it came to that I'd get as close to ground zero as I could.

Better off out of it.
and as much as I'd like world peace and all of us to be friends - even the wonley one in pyongyang - I am a realist.

As my ole mate said " better me in here pointing it out at you than the other way around"

cheers now,