Now what was the reason the USAF F111s had to take such a long route and refuel so many times for the strikes against Libya in 1986? Unlike the aircraft from the Sixth Fleet carriers.
WEBF,
Incorrect. HNS was not an issue during El Dorado Canyon because the HN authorised use of its air bases. Overflight was denied by France but, regardless of routing, land based aircraft still reached their targets, provided the primary Combat Support assets (AWACS, RJ, KC-135, KC-10) for the op, and provided the primary BDA (SR-71). You could argue about the efficiencies of refuelling such extended range ops but land base provided similar numbers of aircraft over the targets as 3 CBGs did.
As ever, land and maritime is complimentary and each has advantages over the other. So stop willy waving.
Meanwhile...
I concur with VC’s views on replacing the SSBNs completely. In reality the primary drivers for replacing Trident are to maintain our place at the UNSC P5 and to retain parity with France.
Ballistic missiles are undoubtedly the most survivable method of maintaining a nuclear deterrent at a time when proliferation is snowballing. However, I think a credible deterrent could be maintained by far cheaper methods from extant platforms (SSN/DDG/manned air). WEBF again misses the point in that the UK has developed its own warheads for the current bomber fleet so his cost argument is irrelevant.
I'd also suggest that we are heading for one god almighty political problem with our SSBNs. Scotland will sadly be independent within 15 years imho and certainly within the lifetime of any Trident replacement (if not our current bombers!). An independent Scotland will then make Faslane unviable and have promised as much. So what do we do? Fork out yet more cash for support facilities in England? This is one example where HNS
will be an enormous factor.
In a perfect world I'd like to see us retain an SSBN fleet. But I agree totally with VC that they cannot be justified in the future for the cost and Scottish independence aspects alone. Retain nukes definitely. But stick them on nuclear armed sub-surface, surface or air launched cruise missiles which could be developed (potentially jointly with France) far more cheaply. Those same platforms could then be employed far more flexibly on other conventional tasks when required.
Although a moot point because of the defence threats when Trident was procured (note that I believe that buying our current SSBN capability was justified), imagine how much more flexible the UK military would be today if, instead we'd have placed our nuclear deterrent on SSNs or a sqn or 2 of B-1Bs? A much larger more flexible RN, an RAF who had maintained a manned bomber force with all the advantages offered by such assets over Afghanistan today.
If we must keep SSBNs, a large proportion of the costs should come from the Treasury NOT the Defence Budget to properly acknowledge the political agenda. Failure to do so will imho be the end of the RN and a significant impediment to the other 2 services fighting efficiency.
Regards,
MM