Why did the RAF give up nuclear weapons...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why did the RAF give up nuclear weapons...
Afternoon all,
I’m doing a bit of a project with work and part of its includes giving a 20 to 30 minute talk on a specific subject. PPRuNe is always good for getting the opinions, views and sarcastic comments of others and I don’t think there are any real wrong answers, just my/your opinion?
The question I’ve been posed is…
"What were the prime factors which prompted the RAF to give up its tactical nuclear weapons? Should RAF procurement plans once again consider the merits of long range, dual role (nuclear/conventional) stand-off bombers in support of distant theatres of operations?"
I've spent the last week or so trawling the internet and I've learned things that I didn't know existed, so all in all its been a worthwhile effort.
I’ve found out the difference between a tactical weapon and a strategic weapon and their uses.
However, it would appear that the only real reason the RAF gave up its nuclear role was that the end of the cold war was fast approaching and there was no real need to replace it. The UK was then left with one single nuclear system, TRIDENT.
There was a consultation in the 70's on whether the POLARIS replacement would be best suited to an air or land/sea based launch and we opted for the latter.
We didn’t replace the V force bombers as we had Tornado, which was reported to be inferior in terms of delivering nuclear weapons and no real replacement for The V force. Does anyone else think we need to look at another long range bomber? The US and Russia still do and they are forging ahead with replacement programmes?
I’d welcome anyone’s opinions and views!
Thanks
Martin
I’m doing a bit of a project with work and part of its includes giving a 20 to 30 minute talk on a specific subject. PPRuNe is always good for getting the opinions, views and sarcastic comments of others and I don’t think there are any real wrong answers, just my/your opinion?
The question I’ve been posed is…
"What were the prime factors which prompted the RAF to give up its tactical nuclear weapons? Should RAF procurement plans once again consider the merits of long range, dual role (nuclear/conventional) stand-off bombers in support of distant theatres of operations?"
I've spent the last week or so trawling the internet and I've learned things that I didn't know existed, so all in all its been a worthwhile effort.
I’ve found out the difference between a tactical weapon and a strategic weapon and their uses.
However, it would appear that the only real reason the RAF gave up its nuclear role was that the end of the cold war was fast approaching and there was no real need to replace it. The UK was then left with one single nuclear system, TRIDENT.
There was a consultation in the 70's on whether the POLARIS replacement would be best suited to an air or land/sea based launch and we opted for the latter.
We didn’t replace the V force bombers as we had Tornado, which was reported to be inferior in terms of delivering nuclear weapons and no real replacement for The V force. Does anyone else think we need to look at another long range bomber? The US and Russia still do and they are forging ahead with replacement programmes?
I’d welcome anyone’s opinions and views!
Thanks
Martin
One reason is the recognition in the present world of the need for security both in 'ready for use' areas and in transit for regular maintenence. During the era of cruise missiles did you ever encounter one of the convoys on the M4 near Chievely leaving or entering the mystery intersection?
Anyway, we don't want them rolling off bomb trolleys on the way round the peri-track......
Anyway, we don't want them rolling off bomb trolleys on the way round the peri-track......
There have been some excellent BBC documentaries over the past couple of years, my understanding is that the advent of ICBMs and anti aircraft weaponry meant that (once they had taken the U2 out) the V bombers became more vulnerable - they started off painted white for high altitude ops in the early 60s and then it was decided they should get camo paint and be flown at low level. They weren't designed for this and performed poorly so rather than renew the airborne platform, they decided to change tack with the Navy and join up with the US in terms of development of a pooled resource.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,868
Received 2,820 Likes
on
1,202 Posts
They were carried by other post the V force.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
"What were the prime factors which prompted the RAF to give up its tactical nuclear weapons?"
WE177 Free-fall Bomb
Mr. Foulkes: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration led to the decision to withdraw the WE.177 in 1998; what was the original date for withdrawal; and on what date that decision was taken. [5165]
Mr. Arbuthnot: The decision to withdraw WE177 from service by the end of 1998, announced on 4 April 1995, Official Report, column 1097, was reached in the light of the good progress being made in providing Trident with a sub-strategic capability. This capability will be fully robust when Vigilant enters service in 1998 and there is no requirement for us to maintain two systems in the sub-strategic role after that point. We had previously assessed that WE177 had the potential to remain in service until the early years of the next century.
Trident Warhead Modification Programme
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks all for your replies. I've probably learned more in the last 20 minutes than I have in the last week!
ORAC, thanks in particular to you. Thats a very handy piece of information that I hadn't seen before
ORAC, thanks in particular to you. Thats a very handy piece of information that I hadn't seen before
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Reading ORAC' s reply suggests that money was a driver. There would have been a significant engineering cost in maintaining the WE177, they needed regular expensive servicing. Then the cost of security at the bomber bases would also be significant.
To use them in out of area operations, aside from the philosophical argument, would have been difficult. We had only one mounting base - Akrotiri. To deploy to a host nation base could be problematical.
Ship borne deployment would have been feasible using SHAR, the Barriers were not cleared.
The advantage for a sub-strategic system was that HMG could neither confirm nor deny ...
The big disadvantage is that no one would know until it went bang and a tactical launch could attract a strategic response. A better solution would be a nuclear SLCM.
To use them in out of area operations, aside from the philosophical argument, would have been difficult. We had only one mounting base - Akrotiri. To deploy to a host nation base could be problematical.
Ship borne deployment would have been feasible using SHAR, the Barriers were not cleared.
The advantage for a sub-strategic system was that HMG could neither confirm nor deny ...
The big disadvantage is that no one would know until it went bang and a tactical launch could attract a strategic response. A better solution would be a nuclear SLCM.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pontius Navigator makes a good point that I've seen else where and that I'll be making during my talk.
Strategic weapons could be used for a tactical purpose and vice versa. Some would argue that the use of a tactical weapon in a tactical role would still be a strategic decesion, since it would change the nature of the tactical war?
Strategic weapons could be used for a tactical purpose and vice versa. Some would argue that the use of a tactical weapon in a tactical role would still be a strategic decesion, since it would change the nature of the tactical war?
The tactical weapon was just that. Used in a tactical way to let the enemy know we were serious or were running out of ideas before resorting to the strategic weapons. I doubt there was any strategic planning concerned. Naturally, I refer to the selective release of said tactical weapons. On pressing the strategic button, all systems were released!
I do find the discussion of "sub-strategic" uses for clearly strategic weapons, such as Trident interesting. At least in the USA this has been discussed and generally dismissed, mainly because how would the enemy or others know that the launch was a tactical launch, and not the first shot in a strategic nuclear exchange? There were some thoughts to putting a conventional warhead on ICBM's, and you would in theory have the ability to put ordinace on any target in most of the the world in around 30 minutes.
Threat must be considered when looking at long range heavy strike/bombers. With the end of the cold war, I do not think the UK was looking at too many scenarios where heavier bombers were required. Heavy bombers are usefull for major peer conflict, and when long range, heavy load and endurance are required. How many of those do you expect to fight? Perhaps the threat and cost/benefit analysis didn't support a heavy bomber force. Such a force is very expensive to build and maintain, and tactical jets can likely get you an acceptable performance for most missions. The main thing you loose is long range capabilty when no airbases are close enough to the fight. So you loose strategic delivery (Cold war) and long range bomber strike (Falklands).
Yes the USA and Russia remain committed to the long range bomber. I see Russia as mainly staying in the game in attempts to remain relevant, and wave their sword. The USA does so as it remains committed to global pressence, being able to defeat any peer nation, and can afford to do so. (I won't go into the polictics of this being right or wrong). Any major conflict the USA is likely to be involved with will be far away from Stateside bases, and will require the range and performance of long range strike.
I think it is OK that the UK has stepped away from the heavy bomber. Perhaps they will find a time when the would have been usefull, but that is a risk that was calculated.
Threat must be considered when looking at long range heavy strike/bombers. With the end of the cold war, I do not think the UK was looking at too many scenarios where heavier bombers were required. Heavy bombers are usefull for major peer conflict, and when long range, heavy load and endurance are required. How many of those do you expect to fight? Perhaps the threat and cost/benefit analysis didn't support a heavy bomber force. Such a force is very expensive to build and maintain, and tactical jets can likely get you an acceptable performance for most missions. The main thing you loose is long range capabilty when no airbases are close enough to the fight. So you loose strategic delivery (Cold war) and long range bomber strike (Falklands).
Yes the USA and Russia remain committed to the long range bomber. I see Russia as mainly staying in the game in attempts to remain relevant, and wave their sword. The USA does so as it remains committed to global pressence, being able to defeat any peer nation, and can afford to do so. (I won't go into the polictics of this being right or wrong). Any major conflict the USA is likely to be involved with will be far away from Stateside bases, and will require the range and performance of long range strike.
I think it is OK that the UK has stepped away from the heavy bomber. Perhaps they will find a time when the would have been usefull, but that is a risk that was calculated.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
But the failure of Tripwire was that the immediate use of strategic weapons wasn't believable; hence the move to Flexible Response and the addition of battlefield and intermediate weapons to provide coupling and make the strategic deterrent believable again.
In the absence of battlefield and intermediate range weapons the additional of a sub-strategic capability to Trident adds the coupling, exactly for the reason that the possibility that the use at one level could be confused as use at the strategic level.
In the absence of battlefield and intermediate range weapons the additional of a sub-strategic capability to Trident adds the coupling, exactly for the reason that the possibility that the use at one level could be confused as use at the strategic level.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: East Midlands
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Operated with WE177 on both Buccaneer and Tornado GR1 and stood Strike QRA for many a year in Germany until the wall came down in 1988 - that was the start of it! The so-called peace dividend (Perestroika et al)! With no pun intended, the writing was on the wall from that day forth for an air-launched nuclear capability!
What of the future? Well, you'd have to work bloody hard and underhandedly to winkle Trident (the Nuke capability) off the submariners for a start! Money would not run to two systems.
BUT
We have an air-launched missile on inventory, which could take a nuclear warhead (once 'twas considered as a research option) and that would have to be the preferred delivery method (Long Range Stand Off rather than, at best, Tossing it from 4 nms!)
HOWEVER
Since SR(A)1244 was binned whilst I was in OR in the mid-90s I think the chances of resurrecting an airborne nuclear capability are pretty remote!
NB. Unusually, but perhaps not surprisingly, Google is not much help on SR(A)1244!
Bloggs
What of the future? Well, you'd have to work bloody hard and underhandedly to winkle Trident (the Nuke capability) off the submariners for a start! Money would not run to two systems.
BUT
We have an air-launched missile on inventory, which could take a nuclear warhead (once 'twas considered as a research option) and that would have to be the preferred delivery method (Long Range Stand Off rather than, at best, Tossing it from 4 nms!)
HOWEVER
Since SR(A)1244 was binned whilst I was in OR in the mid-90s I think the chances of resurrecting an airborne nuclear capability are pretty remote!
NB. Unusually, but perhaps not surprisingly, Google is not much help on SR(A)1244!
Bloggs
Completely flummoxed by Mr Arbuthnot's words quoted from Hansard in Orac's post No 8 – Tried to get me 'ed around the idea of the Vigilant T.1 conducting 'sub-strategic' missions - Well it was a good lunch with the Major . Once I'd worked out Mr Arbuthnot was actually referring to a boat, I perked up, had a quick shufti at Orac's link to the Trident Modernisation (38 pp – full read later) and found this site – which helped me with 'sub-strategic' and might help the OP's task.
United Kingdom Nuclear Forces
BTW fantaman – will you be talking to work colleagues or the W.I or are you on a learned study course ?
LFH
. Once I'd worked out Mr Arbuthnot was actually referring to a boat, I perked up, had a quick shufti at Orac's link to the Trident Modernisation (38 pp – full read later) and found this site – which helped me with 'sub-strategic' and might help the OP's task. United Kingdom Nuclear Forces
BTW fantaman – will you be talking to work colleagues or the W.I or are you on a learned study course ?
LFH
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Arbuthnot's words are straight flim-flam
As Sanddiego points out the people who have serious kit (such as Mr Putin) are going to know very quickly that someone has launched from a SSBN
They aren't going to sit around and wait for even more missiles - they'll just fire the lot (or at least they MAY fire the lot)
Unless you actually stated in advance "the RN is going to fire a single Trident N warhead at Buenos Aires/Damascus/Brussels (delete as required)" you'd be taking a hell of a risk...................
like the Russians or the Chinese saying fire one at them and we'll fire one at you
As Sanddiego points out the people who have serious kit (such as Mr Putin) are going to know very quickly that someone has launched from a SSBN
They aren't going to sit around and wait for even more missiles - they'll just fire the lot (or at least they MAY fire the lot)
Unless you actually stated in advance "the RN is going to fire a single Trident N warhead at Buenos Aires/Damascus/Brussels (delete as required)" you'd be taking a hell of a risk...................
like the Russians or the Chinese saying fire one at them and we'll fire one at you
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Perth, Scotland, United Kingdom ...
Age: 38
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fantaman,
It might interest you to know that the Coalition Government's recent white paper on the future of the country's nuclear deterrent includes extensive analysis and evaluation on restoring the capability to deploy air-delivered nuclear weapons, in place of replacing TRIDENT with a like-for-like subsea-delivered capability.
You can find it here. Good read if nothing else.
It might interest you to know that the Coalition Government's recent white paper on the future of the country's nuclear deterrent includes extensive analysis and evaluation on restoring the capability to deploy air-delivered nuclear weapons, in place of replacing TRIDENT with a like-for-like subsea-delivered capability.
You can find it here. Good read if nothing else.
There was a change in accounting at the MoD as I understood that meant that previously the deterrent was treated separately as a security item.
Renewal from 2015 is going to be more difficult as it is now a defence line item which can be whittled down.
Getting someone with the right technical background to explain the value of CASD and its relevance in the modern era - just getting politicians to understand the value of deterrence and know what a second strike capability is, will be much tougher.
Renewal from 2015 is going to be more difficult as it is now a defence line item which can be whittled down.
Getting someone with the right technical background to explain the value of CASD and its relevance in the modern era - just getting politicians to understand the value of deterrence and know what a second strike capability is, will be much tougher.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Woptb, nawty bouy.
One word:
Machrihanish
One word:
Machrihanish
Last edited by Pontius Navigator; 4th Feb 2015 at 07:36.