Could the RAF resume the nuclear deterrent as a cheaper alternative to Trident?
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: The real world
Posts: 446
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How can fitting nuclear warheads on TLAMS onto boats already capable of firing TLAMS be more expensive than designing, developing, building, testing etc of a brand new SSBN boat and missile system?
Just build four or more extra Astute class subs and use them exclusively for Nuclear patrols, how difficult can it be?
Just because the yanks have got rid doesn't mean we couldn't buy the system.
Just build four or more extra Astute class subs and use them exclusively for Nuclear patrols, how difficult can it be?
Just because the yanks have got rid doesn't mean we couldn't buy the system.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not all nukes are equal Javand.
The nuke that fits on TLAM is not the same as the nukes on the SSBNs, and neither is the probability of getting to the target.
In the same way, not all boats are the same. V boats are designed to silently bimble around submerged for months on end without being seen or heard. Astute, not so much....
The nuke that fits on TLAM is not the same as the nukes on the SSBNs, and neither is the probability of getting to the target.
In the same way, not all boats are the same. V boats are designed to silently bimble around submerged for months on end without being seen or heard. Astute, not so much....
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Remember too that for 30 years after the RN took over the deterrent, ie the WAR aspect, RN and RAF fielded a considerable follow on force for tactical use and for the first 12 years Vulcans for both tactical and strategic targets.
What we are talking of now is an absolute minimum arsenal which obviously must be as secure and invulnerable as possible.
What we are talking of now is an absolute minimum arsenal which obviously must be as secure and invulnerable as possible.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: The real world
Posts: 446
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tourist, of course they're not as capable. We as a small nation need to decide what we want and how much we're willing to pay, I personnally don't think we need an SSBN trident type replacement system.
TLAM N on six or so Astute boats would be plenty enough for me.
TLAM N on six or so Astute boats would be plenty enough for me.
Another fly in the ointment if you equip some TLAMs with a nuclear warhead is nobody knows what you have just launched, it may be conventional or it may be nuclear. Your enemy may then launch a nuclear strike while the missile is in flight in retaliation to a supposed nuclear attack when in fact it is just a conventional attack.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: South of the ex-North Devon flying club. North of Isca.
Age: 48
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The other problem with TLAM is we don't have any warheads to go on them. The UK has always designed and maintained it's own.
Trident may share it's technology and "blunt end" with it's US brethren, but the bit at the pointy end is designed and built at that place in Berkshire.
We can't convert and fit the tactical warheads either. They were decommissioned several years ago after the RAF had finished with them.
Trident may share it's technology and "blunt end" with it's US brethren, but the bit at the pointy end is designed and built at that place in Berkshire.
We can't convert and fit the tactical warheads either. They were decommissioned several years ago after the RAF had finished with them.
Join Date: May 2015
Location: England
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Malcrf. What was wrong with the Blue Parrot and GPIC?
I must admit I don't get why the need to keep designing new platforms when most of the modern changes seem to be what you stick in them, so I don't understand why we don't just keep refining the platforms whilst changing what we stick in them.
So new-build Victors and Buccaneers capable of launching long-range nuclear cruise missiles seems perfectly viable to me, and whilst we're at it why not new build Nimrods for our MPA?!!
"How can fitting nuclear warheads on TLAMS onto boats already capable of firing TLAMS be more expensive than designing, developing, building, testing etc of a brand new SSBN boat and missile system?"
Many reasons! Firstly its not an existing weapon system, it'd be an entirely new system. We'd have to design and field from scratch the warhead, the missile system, the support network and so on. Thats assuming the US sells us TLAM if they knew we'd stick a nuclear warhead on it, and that we can do so under counterproliferation treaties.
I'm trying hard not to sound patronising or one track record here, but it really isn't cheaper. I know it comes up a lot, but I can assure you that vast amounts of research has been done on this over many years, and they always reach the same conclusion. To deliver the effect we want at a minimal cost, the SSBN is the only answer that is credible.
Nuclear TLAM is great if you want to give your opponent several hours advance warning of a strike and also mean you can't use any form of cruise missile against them for other purposes without passing the escalation threshold.
Additionally, one minor but critical point to consider. SSBNs are designed to sit there silently and wait for orders to be received. The most critical and vital part of a deterrent isn't arguably the warheads, its the Command and Control and Communications element to ensure that if the PM requests a nuclear strike, CDS can order one (a critical distinction). The C3 package is exceptionally complex, requires a lot of kit and isn't something you could easily change without incurring a lot of expensive rebuilding (if you do some googling you can fairly easily see some of the sites we require to this day to keep the nuclear firing chain in place). You also need to refit the submarines to carry the comms suite to do this - this is not as simple as putting some radios into a hull, and would probably require an entirely new design to be built.
In other words you're building a new design weapon, a new design warhead, a new design submarine, a new design C3I battle management system and a lot of other stuff to, and in return you reduce your tactical options against most opponents and spend a lot more money to do less than you could do before. Why does this make sense?
Many reasons! Firstly its not an existing weapon system, it'd be an entirely new system. We'd have to design and field from scratch the warhead, the missile system, the support network and so on. Thats assuming the US sells us TLAM if they knew we'd stick a nuclear warhead on it, and that we can do so under counterproliferation treaties.
I'm trying hard not to sound patronising or one track record here, but it really isn't cheaper. I know it comes up a lot, but I can assure you that vast amounts of research has been done on this over many years, and they always reach the same conclusion. To deliver the effect we want at a minimal cost, the SSBN is the only answer that is credible.
Nuclear TLAM is great if you want to give your opponent several hours advance warning of a strike and also mean you can't use any form of cruise missile against them for other purposes without passing the escalation threshold.
Additionally, one minor but critical point to consider. SSBNs are designed to sit there silently and wait for orders to be received. The most critical and vital part of a deterrent isn't arguably the warheads, its the Command and Control and Communications element to ensure that if the PM requests a nuclear strike, CDS can order one (a critical distinction). The C3 package is exceptionally complex, requires a lot of kit and isn't something you could easily change without incurring a lot of expensive rebuilding (if you do some googling you can fairly easily see some of the sites we require to this day to keep the nuclear firing chain in place). You also need to refit the submarines to carry the comms suite to do this - this is not as simple as putting some radios into a hull, and would probably require an entirely new design to be built.
In other words you're building a new design weapon, a new design warhead, a new design submarine, a new design C3I battle management system and a lot of other stuff to, and in return you reduce your tactical options against most opponents and spend a lot more money to do less than you could do before. Why does this make sense?
Join Date: May 2015
Location: England
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The other problem with TLAM is we don't have any warheads to go on them. The UK has always designed and maintained it's own.
Trident may share it's technology and "blunt end" with it's US brethren, but the bit at the pointy end is designed and built at that place in Berkshire.
We can't convert and fit the tactical warheads either. They were decommissioned several years ago after the RAF had finished with them.
Trident may share it's technology and "blunt end" with it's US brethren, but the bit at the pointy end is designed and built at that place in Berkshire.
We can't convert and fit the tactical warheads either. They were decommissioned several years ago after the RAF had finished with them.
"So new-build Victors and Buccaneers capable of launching long-range nuclear cruise missiles seems perfectly viable to me, and whilst we're at it why not new build Nimrods for our MPA?!!"
Because the designs date back to the 1950s using machinery, technology and industrial techniques long obsolete and out of date and no longer available. We'd have to rebuild from scratch a bespoke industrial base to create a design using 1950s kit and then shoehorn in 2010s technology and hope it works.
Nimrod is a classic lesson in why rebuilds from scratch will always go badly badly wrong.
Because the designs date back to the 1950s using machinery, technology and industrial techniques long obsolete and out of date and no longer available. We'd have to rebuild from scratch a bespoke industrial base to create a design using 1950s kit and then shoehorn in 2010s technology and hope it works.
Nimrod is a classic lesson in why rebuilds from scratch will always go badly badly wrong.
Join Date: May 2015
Location: England
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nimrod is a classic lesson in why rebuilds from scratch will always go badly badly wrong.
And, as the P3 re-winging seems to prove, you can build old designs with modern tools and techniques................so if the platform gives you the performance characteristics you need why not stick with it?!
That was one obvious pitfall waiting for someone to fall into it. However, many, more serious issues actually led to the cancellation.
Just because the Victor / Buccaneer was a good bomber in the 1950s doesnt mean that nearly 60 years later it would be any good now.
I'm also curious as to how we'd build a plane designed using 1950s kit, technology and so on when all of this has been replaced by vastly more capable kit and technology. Presumably you'd want the upgraded version in service, so we get to build a 1950s plane and put 2015 technology in it, that it wasnt actually designed to carry or use?
Bluntly, your idea of new build victor / buccanneer is utter madness.
I'm also curious as to how we'd build a plane designed using 1950s kit, technology and so on when all of this has been replaced by vastly more capable kit and technology. Presumably you'd want the upgraded version in service, so we get to build a 1950s plane and put 2015 technology in it, that it wasnt actually designed to carry or use?
Bluntly, your idea of new build victor / buccanneer is utter madness.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: N London
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I could be adding 2 and 2 and getting 5 anyhow here goes. Several years ago the French tested a warhead in French Polynesia atmospherically in breach of the rules. Everybody was in uproar about this but the UK was surprisingly quiet. Now is it possible that the bucket of sunshine was a joint UK/French job ? The reason I say this is both the French and UK have potentially a similar platform to put this on.
The French have SCALP we have Storm Shadow which I think are the same unit made by MBDA
So if the French warhead tested was for SCALP then it would fit Storm Shadow.
Now allowing for the storage and control issues etc I believe you have a suitable weapon for the RAF.
The French have SCALP we have Storm Shadow which I think are the same unit made by MBDA
So if the French warhead tested was for SCALP then it would fit Storm Shadow.
Now allowing for the storage and control issues etc I believe you have a suitable weapon for the RAF.
The French warhead was a french warhead - we weren't that close to the French at the time. Our warheads were tested in the US.
No conspiracy here, and definitely no joint test.
No conspiracy here, and definitely no joint test.
I could be adding 2 and 2 and getting 5 anyhow here goes. Several years ago the French tested a warhead in French Polynesia atmospherically in breach of the rules. Everybody was in uproar about this but the UK was surprisingly quiet. Now is it possible that the bucket of sunshine was a joint UK/French job ? The reason I say this is both the French and UK have potentially a similar platform to put this on.
The tests you refer to are nigh on twenty years ago and were underground, not atmospheric. They were done to generate data prior to French ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and in terms of warhead development, probably track better with the TN75 warhead for their SLBM force.
Their air-delivered buckets of sunshine tend to be on the end of an ASMP-A, which is a rather different weapon to Scalp.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Jimlad, our cousins have done exactly that with the B52.
Shoe horning New kit in is not the problem. The problem is adding the balancing weights.
The NBS weighed in at around 1600lbs. I could probably carry the computer and fixing system in my shirt pocket.
Shoe horning New kit in is not the problem. The problem is adding the balancing weights.
The NBS weighed in at around 1600lbs. I could probably carry the computer and fixing system in my shirt pocket.