Jimlad1
I would strongly advise that the free-fall option is NOT cheaper than the current SSBN option. As I noted above, it would mean regeneration of a lot of capabilities and skills we've not done for decades, and would lead to either capability whithering in other areas to sustain the deterrent, or it would need to enlargement of the forces at substantial cost.
Interesting, many thanks. The paper as it stands sees a predominately land-based force, with the carriers to provide flexible basing. When was the last time free-fall operated off the carriers? We were told it was Harrier FRS1s through to the end of the Cold War.
HH,
"At least half those targets on your list would involve launching from the Baltic, E Med or Persian Gulf"
are you seriously proposing sending a single carrier, declared as carrying N weapons, to those places in a time of internal tension with Russia?
As above, it is envisaged as a largely land based force, with the carriers providing flexibility. Most of the targets are modeled from Akrotiri, actually.
Speaking personally, I cannot foresee any realistic scenario under which the UK and Russia would engage in a nuclear standoff with no-one else involved, nor, with Russian conventional forces no longer in the GDR, can I see a situation developing in anything other than decades-long timescales where the UK would face the risk of nuclear decoupling from the US. I accept that this was a possibility in the Cold War, and would have backed Trident on that basis. Can you see the difference?
N-a-B,
I've not got my TAR & notes in front of me. If I may, I'll get back to you.
Kind regards to all,
TTr