Could the RAF resume the nuclear deterrent as a cheaper alternative to Trident?
Join Date: May 2015
Location: England
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The question was
I guess there are those of us for whom the question is academic. It's SSBN or nothing. And then there are those of us proffering options.
Cruise missiles seem to be within the technological reach of a wide range of nations, and we have previously built medium and long-range aircraft capable of getting them within reach of a fair number of targets, so for me the answer is possibly...............whether it is better than SSBNs is another question.
For this question it turns on whether it is cheaper, not whether it is technologically possible (it seems it is) or better (not part of the original question). And as for cheaper, no idea!
Could the RAF resume the nuclear deterrent as a cheaper alternative to Trident?
Cruise missiles seem to be within the technological reach of a wide range of nations, and we have previously built medium and long-range aircraft capable of getting them within reach of a fair number of targets, so for me the answer is possibly...............whether it is better than SSBNs is another question.
For this question it turns on whether it is cheaper, not whether it is technologically possible (it seems it is) or better (not part of the original question). And as for cheaper, no idea!
Join Date: May 2015
Location: England
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Posted by Courtney Mil
I really wouldn't want to, just can't help thinking that with the F35B (short, fat, ugly plane edition) that's all we can reach!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malcrf
Great plane if we want to stealthily bomb the French!
Erm, do you mind if you don't?
Originally Posted by Malcrf
Great plane if we want to stealthily bomb the French!
Erm, do you mind if you don't?
If your criterion of successful deterrence is to be able to deliver a bucket of sunshine to an unspecified target, without much consideration of defences or potential vulnerability of that deterrent to an attack, that's one thing. Many describe that as the flatten Tehran / Pyongyang / Paris
option. If on the other hand you consider deterrence to be against a much more capable threat, the old Moscow criterion (particularly given current trends) is rather hard to argue against.It's only a limited to a question of cost if you compare like with like.....
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cruise missiles seem to be within the technological reach of a wide range of nations, and we have previously built medium and long-range aircraft capable of getting them within reach of a fair number of targets, so for me the answer is possibly...............whether it is better than SSBNs is another question.
Join Date: May 2015
Location: England
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's only a limited to a question of cost if you compare like with like.....
However if you are only going to consider cost if you are comparing like with like then you're both narrowing the debate incredibly, and probably being rather unrealistic.
The question remains would an RAF based deterrent offer sufficient deterrence regardless of whether it is as much of a deterrent as Trident, whilst costing less. Refusing to consider non like for like options is ignoring the question.
And one has to wonder whether not having an independent nuclear deterrent is much of a deterrent at all..............................
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Tennessee - Smoky Mountains
Age: 55
Posts: 1,602
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Land(ish) based?
Just a thought, which will almost certainly be pooh-poohed, but still worthy of brief consideration:
In light of the fact that the UK has horrendous debts, and really can't afford to do anything expensive, new delivery mechanisms for these weapons are more likely to succeed politically if they are cheaper.
How about putting the missiles in land-based silos? The missiles have a 7000km range, I believe, so that's enough to reach pretty much anyone that might feasibly need a nuclear spanking from the UK. No need to target any of the Americas, I don't see any of those states becoming nuclear-armed and belligerent during the remaining life of the Trident D5. Surely land based silos are much cheaper than nuclear submarines. The even cheaper option would be to just park the existing boats in dockyards and fire them from there, if technically feasible.
Of course they would be vulnerable to sabotage or a surprise first strike, but then so is a submarine to some extent. If they are geographically dispersed, an enemy would need to take all of them out simultaneously. The Russians, Americans, Indians, Pakistanis and Chinese all have land-based long-range missiles. Even though all of those countries are much larger than the UK (and hence can hide the missiles somewhat better), UK has a fairly wide spread of sovereign territory around the world that most of the others don't have.
The UK's atomic weapons are now of a strategic nature only, and either will trigger a massive retaliation if used, or are themselves a massive retaliation. Once the missiles in the submarine(s) currently on patrol have been launched, that's yer lot. It's not like they'll tootle off to King's Bay to be re-armed. They are therefore a deterrent weapon. Would a potential aggressor really be able to wipe out say 4 locations simultaneously? Hell of a gamble to make, both ways. Fail to take them all out and you will be annihilated. Fail to prevent them all being taken out, and the UK will be annihilated.
But annihilation is pretty much guaranteed anyway.
In light of the fact that the UK has horrendous debts, and really can't afford to do anything expensive, new delivery mechanisms for these weapons are more likely to succeed politically if they are cheaper.
How about putting the missiles in land-based silos? The missiles have a 7000km range, I believe, so that's enough to reach pretty much anyone that might feasibly need a nuclear spanking from the UK. No need to target any of the Americas, I don't see any of those states becoming nuclear-armed and belligerent during the remaining life of the Trident D5. Surely land based silos are much cheaper than nuclear submarines. The even cheaper option would be to just park the existing boats in dockyards and fire them from there, if technically feasible.
Of course they would be vulnerable to sabotage or a surprise first strike, but then so is a submarine to some extent. If they are geographically dispersed, an enemy would need to take all of them out simultaneously. The Russians, Americans, Indians, Pakistanis and Chinese all have land-based long-range missiles. Even though all of those countries are much larger than the UK (and hence can hide the missiles somewhat better), UK has a fairly wide spread of sovereign territory around the world that most of the others don't have.
The UK's atomic weapons are now of a strategic nature only, and either will trigger a massive retaliation if used, or are themselves a massive retaliation. Once the missiles in the submarine(s) currently on patrol have been launched, that's yer lot. It's not like they'll tootle off to King's Bay to be re-armed. They are therefore a deterrent weapon. Would a potential aggressor really be able to wipe out say 4 locations simultaneously? Hell of a gamble to make, both ways. Fail to take them all out and you will be annihilated. Fail to prevent them all being taken out, and the UK will be annihilated.
But annihilation is pretty much guaranteed anyway.
May I very strongly suggest anyone interested in this reads the paper from 2006 when the replacement for Trident was first mooted.
Annex B in the paper sets out the alternatives (TLAM, air launched, sea launched and land based) and talks through the reasons why SSBN remains the preferred option. It may be worth reading it in detail? Its worth looking particularly at the graphic showing the size of just one USAF ICBM field compared to the size of the UK as a whole.
https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...006_Cm6994.pdf
Edit to add the Trident alternatives review too which says much the same but in more detail. Again well worth a read.
https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...ives_Study.pdf
Annex B in the paper sets out the alternatives (TLAM, air launched, sea launched and land based) and talks through the reasons why SSBN remains the preferred option. It may be worth reading it in detail? Its worth looking particularly at the graphic showing the size of just one USAF ICBM field compared to the size of the UK as a whole.
https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...006_Cm6994.pdf
Edit to add the Trident alternatives review too which says much the same but in more detail. Again well worth a read.
https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...ives_Study.pdf
Jimlad,
I think most people here understand the obvious advantages of SLBMs, so me real need to set us homework. Again, the exam question here was COULD not SHOULD. It's not necessarily about what the strategically superior option is, it's also about a number of interesting factors in the fiscal and political arenas.
No one is trying to take away the RN's ownership of this important role, just enjoying considering the question.
Thank you for the links, though. I suspect the Government will want to ask the questions again; a lot changes in ten years - not least the answer they may want from a review.
NAB,
I would hope we only fire nukes at SPECIFIED targets.
I think most people here understand the obvious advantages of SLBMs, so me real need to set us homework. Again, the exam question here was COULD not SHOULD. It's not necessarily about what the strategically superior option is, it's also about a number of interesting factors in the fiscal and political arenas.
No one is trying to take away the RN's ownership of this important role, just enjoying considering the question.
Thank you for the links, though. I suspect the Government will want to ask the questions again; a lot changes in ten years - not least the answer they may want from a review.
NAB,
I would hope we only fire nukes at SPECIFIED targets.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Tennessee - Smoky Mountains
Age: 55
Posts: 1,602
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
May I very strongly suggest anyone interested in this reads the paper from 2006 when the replacement for Trident was first mooted.
Annex B in the paper sets out the alternatives (TLAM, air launched, sea launched and land based) and talks through the reasons why SSBN remains the preferred option. It may be worth reading it in detail? Its worth looking particularly at the graphic showing the size of just one USAF ICBM field compared to the size of the UK as a whole.
https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...006_Cm6994.pdf
Edit to add the Trident alternatives review too which says much the same but in more detail. Again well worth a read.
https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...ives_Study.pdf
Annex B in the paper sets out the alternatives (TLAM, air launched, sea launched and land based) and talks through the reasons why SSBN remains the preferred option. It may be worth reading it in detail? Its worth looking particularly at the graphic showing the size of just one USAF ICBM field compared to the size of the UK as a whole.
https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...006_Cm6994.pdf
Edit to add the Trident alternatives review too which says much the same but in more detail. Again well worth a read.
https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...ives_Study.pdf
Not a terribly convincing government papper from Blair and his mates in 2006. It raised a lot of questions in my mind. Just a couple for now.
The big elephant is the statement made in 06 that it would take 17 years to field and the extant system would be out of service in the early 2020s. Why didn't they do anything about it then before it was too late - especially considering the statement that life extensions were unlikely to be effective or for particularly long. We now have fewer that 10 years to decide upon a system and get it into service.
The whole thing was clearly written to support only one option and to discount the others on cost and effectiveness grounds. SSBN is the obvious answer, but the other choices cited were so obviously flawed. The air option, for example, was 20 airliners carrying nukes, with the attached claim that they're easy to shoot down. Really?
Whilst they include the costs of building bases for the air option, they have omitted to include the cost of emptying, cleaning and then rebuilding Faslane and Coleport. Oops.
Way to much political spin in there to be convincing.
The big elephant is the statement made in 06 that it would take 17 years to field and the extant system would be out of service in the early 2020s. Why didn't they do anything about it then before it was too late - especially considering the statement that life extensions were unlikely to be effective or for particularly long. We now have fewer that 10 years to decide upon a system and get it into service.
The whole thing was clearly written to support only one option and to discount the others on cost and effectiveness grounds. SSBN is the obvious answer, but the other choices cited were so obviously flawed. The air option, for example, was 20 airliners carrying nukes, with the attached claim that they're easy to shoot down. Really?
Whilst they include the costs of building bases for the air option, they have omitted to include the cost of emptying, cleaning and then rebuilding Faslane and Coleport. Oops.
Way to much political spin in there to be convincing.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Tennessee - Smoky Mountains
Age: 55
Posts: 1,602
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
"I think most people here understand the obvious advantages of SLBMs, so me real need to set us homework. "
I'm not setting homework, I'm offering links to information that helps explain the HMG view on the case. This is a view thats not changed in over 50 years by the way, so its clearly got some legs!
If you think its homework, you don't have to do it, but you can have detention and write 'I am a naughty crab' 617 times before you can go home.
I'm not setting homework, I'm offering links to information that helps explain the HMG view on the case. This is a view thats not changed in over 50 years by the way, so its clearly got some legs!
If you think its homework, you don't have to do it, but you can have detention and write 'I am a naughty crab' 617 times before you can go home.
Roadster,
I see it now. Thank you.
Jimlad,
The conclusions are undoubtedly correct, the vehicle for getting the correct political answer is clearly as bent as an Aussie fast ball.
I'll do my lines tomorrow. Honest.
I see it now. Thank you.
Jimlad,
The conclusions are undoubtedly correct, the vehicle for getting the correct political answer is clearly as bent as an Aussie fast ball.
I'll do my lines tomorrow. Honest.
Perhaps I've missed it by scanning this thread too quickly - but has no one mentioned TASM? A huge amount of work was devoted to the development of TASM in the 1990s to replace WE 177 as a free-fall weapon.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
he big elephant is the statement made in 06 that it would take 17 years to field and the extant system would be out of service in the early 2020s. Why didn't they do anything about it then before it was too late - especially considering the statement that life extensions were unlikely to be effective or for particularly long. We now have fewer that 10 years to decide upon a system and get it into service.
e.g.........
Defence secretary publishes update on progress with Trident replacement | Nuclear Information Service
See pages 19-21....
http://researchbriefings.files.parli...26/SN06526.pdf
Oh absolutely. I was just pointing out that for some of the supporters of an A/L option, the approach appeared to be strap the bucket on the cab and jobza guddun, hey presto credible deterrent, rather than any consideration of value, time criticality, defences, vulnerability and so forth.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Roadster, you haven't considered land prices in UK nor the cost of the public enquiry. We have yet to publish the GW 2 report.