No nukes please, we're skittish

[Violet Club]

The latest edition of Aviation Week & Space Technology (December 11 edition) has a story about the whole UK nuclear deterrent thang, discussing the background to and prospects for the probable Trident solution.

It references the nonsense option of nuclear Storm Shadow-armed A350s that was offered as a ridiculous Aunt Sally in the MoD’s future options list, but also says this about the RAF’s general attitude to taking on the role:

“Within the Royal Air Force there appeared to be little enthusiasm (at least among some senior officers) to re-enter the nuclear arena, given the cost and training implications of the role.”

Is this really a reflection of general opinion within the RAF? I understand there are implications for an overstretched force in taking back a role like this, but can the RAF really not be bothered...?

[Maple 01]

Not bothered? BEags dust off your Vulcan pilots notes - gentlemen, I give you Blue Steel!

[Tombstone]

Not bothered? BEags dust off your Vulcan pilots notes - gentlemen, I give you Blue Steel!

I can see a long term role for 558! 607 at Waddington doesn't look too shabby either so come on, lets scrap the F35 Dave & get on with it.

Perhaps we could use Gordon Brown's country estate as a live range?:E

[GPMG]

Why on earth would the RAF take on a part in the nuclear deterrent?

How many aircraft can deliver 48 (96 if planned for) warheads?
How many aircraft would be knocked out before delivering their payload or cruise missile?
How many aircraft can loiter undetected just off an enemies coast (or anywhere) providing a very powerful threat?

If we got to the stage of using Nukes it would be very unlikely to be against a Mickey Mouse air defense system and we can't guarantee air superiority.

The Navy has been providing a very effective deterrent and they have a very good infrastructure and process set up to deal with it.

What makes you chaps think that the RAF can do better?

The world has changed in the last 20 years beyond all comprehension, the Soviet Bear is now our friend and mutually assured destruction seems highly unlikely. But how do we know that in 20 years we won’t be facing another cold war.
Who knows, we may even decide to nuke the French for sh*ts and giggles.

[glum]

Have it back? Sod that! The RN do a bloody good job of sneaking round the world with big sticks, and I can't see any point in changing the way the system currently works.

Big respect to the blokes who spend all that time underwater for our National security, rather them than me!

I suppose it will be cheaper to have a plane sat in a hanger waiting to launch a Nuke than it is to keep a sub underwater...

[Widger]

Just before the "Vulcan" oldboys get started I'll add my 2p worth. The RAF no longer have an organisation that supplies, maintains, operates Nuclear Weaponry. They are either all dead or retired.

To re-establish an airborne Nuclear Deterrant would require a massive infrastructure programme to upgrade HAS sites, Bunkers, Armouries and all the associated links. Then they will need to train hundreds of engineers, armourers and aircrew to supply, maintain and operate said equipment. That is before tactics are introduced and training starts, followed by the ability to maintain that on-call force 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.

Even without the argument about survivability, any reversion to the 1960s policy would be hideously expensive and suck valuable resources and cash away from where it is really needed, in Transport, SH, Conventional Strike and ISTAR.

So stop living in the past. It will never happen. The deterrant is in the best place, and maintained and operated by an organisation that already exists. Any extension to Trident's life will be cheap in comparison.

Have a good XMAS.

[Maple 01]

Party pooper Widger! Think of all the investment generated, the benefits to the construction industry, BWOS (you didn’t think we were going to buy foreign did you?), the secondary rejuvenation of the local economies, think of the massive increase of service personnel, promotions, postings, the knock on effect for the civilian market of a well trained pool of sparkies, sooties avionics, IT and Admin chaps and chapesses . Bring forth the TSR3s!

AND DID THOSE FEET IN ANCIENT TIMES..........

(See “Ministry of Space” for how it should have been)

[oncemorealoft]

"I suppose it will be cheaper to have a plane sat in a hanger waiting to launch a Nuke than it is to keep a sub underwater..."

Surely it's easier to sink than fly?

I'll get me coat

[West Coast]

Vulcan, was that the goofy looking plane that was operational back in that last century?



.....Running and hiding

[ORAC]

I´ve got the history of the RAF deterrent back at home. IIRC the total staff established to plan the V-force introduction to service including all engineering and flying training and all engineering, security and logistic support was along the lines of a Wg Cdr, 6 Sqn Ldrs and a similar number of WO/Flt Sgts.

I wonder how many people it would need today....... :hmm:

[brickhistory]

I thought it was just a movie prop for "Thunderball......"












Hey, Westie, open up the bunker, let me in.........!

[Pontius Navigator]

Brick, BTW, what does the USAF have now that SAC has gone? Is it just missiles?

[London Mil]

Aren't there still some Flying Bananas kicking about? Put them on one of the new ships, re-invent the WE177B (OK it isn't exactly the mother of all nukes but...) and Bob is your mother's 'best friend'.

On the other hand........................

[brickhistory]

Brick, BTW, what does the USAF have now that SAC has gone? Is it just missiles?

Oh, you mean the "other last century" bomber? The difference is that one's still flying..............:}

(And B-1s and B-2s......and not so many ICBMs nowadays, either....)

[GPMG]

Hmmmmm, I think Brick's argument could be pretty watertight on this one.

Would be futile trying to score points against the amazing B-52.

[ORAC]

CRS Report for Congress:

B-2 Bomber.

The Air Force has 21 B-2 bombers, based at Whiteman AFB in Missouri. The B-2 bomber can carry both B-61 and B-83 nuclear bombs, but is not equipped to carry cruise missiles. It can also carry conventional weapons, and has participated in U.S. military campaigns from Bosnia to Iraq. It is designed as a “low observable”aircraft, and was intended to improve the U.S. ability to penetrate Soviet air defenses.

Weapons.

According to unclassified estimates, the United States has around 550 B-61 and B-83 bombs.The B61-11, a modification developed in the 1990s,has a hardened, modified case so that it can penetrate some hardened targets, although probably not those encased in steel and concrete. The B-83 bomb is a high yield weapon, that is also designed to destroy hardened targets, such as ICBM silos.

B-52 Bomber.

The Air Force currently maintains 94 B-52H aircraft at two bases, Barksdale, Louisiana and Minot, North Dakota. The B-52 bomber, which first entered service in 1961, is equipped to carry nuclear or conventional air-launched cruise missiles and nuclear-armed advanced cruise missiles......

The House, in its version of the FY2007 Defense Authorization Bill, prohibited the Air Force from retiring any of the B-52 aircraft, and mandated that it maintain at least 44 “combat coded” aircraft until the Air Force began to replace the B-52 with a new bomber of equal or greater capability.....

There are some indications that, during the discussions on the QDR, some in the Pentagon argued that the all the B-52 bombers should be removed from the nuclear role. According to S.Rept. 109-274, Energy and Water Appropriations Bill 2007, the Nuclear Weapons Council and Department of Defense no longer support the W80 Life Extension activities. As a result, both the House (H.R. 5427) and Senate Appropriations Bills eliminate funding for this effort.....

Weapons.

The B-52 bomber is equipped to carry both the Air-Launched cruise missile (ALCM) and Advanced Cruise Missile (ACM). The ACM reportedly has a modified design with a lower radar cross-section, making it more “stealthy” than the ALCM. According to Air Force figures, the United States currently has 1,142 ALCMs and 460 ACMs.

Although these weapons represent a majority of the weapons that U.S. bombers could carry on nuclear missions, the Department of Defense is reportedly pursuing a study of the future role of these missiles in the U.S.force mix. With the growing interest in conventional strike capabilities, there maybe a declining interest in maintaining the force of nuclear-armed cruise missiles.

Both the ALCM and ACM are currently undergoing life-extension programs so that they can remain in service through 2030. Both cruise missiles also carry the W-80 warhead, which was scheduled to for a life-extension program. However, the Department of Defense has recently indicated that it no longer plans to support the W-80 refurbishment program, raising further questions about the future role of nuclear-armed cruise missiles in the U.S. arsenal.

Under the START II Treaty, the United States would have had to count the total number of nuclear weapons the B-2 and B-52 bombers were equipped to carry under its allocation of permitted warheads. These warheads would have counted even if the bombers were equipped to perform conventional missions, unless the bombers were altered so that they could no longer carry nuclear weapons.

Under the Moscow Treaty, however, the United States will only count as “operationally deployed” those nuclear weapons stored at bomber bases, excluding a small number of spare warheads. It does not intend to alter any bombers so that they cannot carry nuclear weapons. Consequently, the number of bomber weapons could decrease in the future, even without changes to the numbers of deployed bombers, as the United States retires weapons or removes them from storage areas at Minot, Barksdale, and Whiteman Air Force Bases.

Future Bomber Plans.

The Air Force has begun toplan for the developmentof a new strategic bomber, with its possible introduction into the fleet in around 2018. According to Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne, the service is seeking a bomber with not only stealth capabilities and long range, but also one that can “stay airborne and on call for very long periods.”

The start of the study on a new bomber, known as an Analysis of Alternatives (AOA) has been delayed in recent months bya dispute over whether the study should stand alone or be merged with another AOA on prompt global strike (PGS). While a future bomber could be a part of the PGS mission, other systems, such as hypersonic technologies and missiles, would also be a part of the effort to strike anywhere around the world at long range.

General Cartwright of STRATCOM has reportedly supported a plan to merge the two efforts, so that the considerations of capabilities for a new bomber would be measured along side other systems, both to balance the force and avoid redundancy across the force. On the other hand, the Air Force Chief of Staff, General T. Michael Moseley, reportedly preferred to keep the two studies separate. He has argued that a bomber with long-range strike capabilities must have “persistent, survivable, and penetrating capabilities” while a platform with PGS capabilities could be “standoff weapon that is very, very fast.” This position reportedly prevailed, with the Air Force deciding, in May 2006, to keep the two studies separate.

This dispute reveals wide-ranging differences, within the Air Force and Pentagon, about the goals for and capabilities that should be sought in a new bomber program. The dispute focuses, however, on conventional capabilities; it seems to be almost a foregone conclusion that nuclear capabilities, or the need for a bomber leg of the nuclear triad, will not drive the discussion or analysis................

[ARINC]

I'm sure we could cobble something together to drop this !


http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b112/Baw1085/Isitticking.jpg

[engoal]

“Within the Royal Air Force there appeared to be little enthusiasm (at least among some senior officers) to re-enter the nuclear arena, given the cost and training implications of the role.”

After the justifiable hiding that their Airships have taken in this arena over the past few weeks, it makes a refreshing change to see hints that they may, after all, have the sense they are paid to employ.

To be frank (and I'm not Frank, that's another story), if giving us back the keys to Bucket of Sunshine Club is the answer, it must be a very silly question!

[Trumpet_trousers]

...an' I'll set me dog on yer!" :E
http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d1/trumpet_trousers/110-1065_IMG.jpg

(I'm sure there's a caption competition in there somewhere too.. e.g. how many retarded items can you see?)

[Blacksheep]

...They are either all dead or retiredNo we're not!

I don't draw my deferred pension until next year and I'm still gainfully employed in aviation. ...and I'll have you know, one of my fellow apprentices has a nice little number at Aldermarston, filling buckets of sunshine for the matelots.

I don't think that manned aeroplanes are the answer, nor Trident missiles. The right answer is lots of cruise missiles with smaller but more numerous warheads and smaller, simpler submarines to carry them. You can make them nuclear, chemical or biological - or even HE. And you have the option of firing them not only from under the sea, but also from on top of the sea, from an aeroplane or even from the back of a lorry. All the nasty little b*st*rds around the world are within range of a strike from any direction. Use a neutron bomb and you even get to carry on using the oilfields afterwards.

Then there's the nuclear artillery shell. A WMD that's Ideal for dealing with nuclear bomb waving dictators. Not Weapons of Mass Destruction per se, merely Weapons of Middling Destruction.

My favourite nuclear age photo shows a 105 mm gun firing a 0.5 kiloton battlefield nuke at a squadron (is that the right description?) of 50 tanks in formation. Airburst at 500 feet. When the smoke clears the only thing visible is a camera-carrying barrage balloon, crashed on its nose just in front of the gun. Of the tanks there is no sign at all.

[West Coast]

I believe its the Davy Crockett you speak of. I remember reading once that its minimum engagement distance is 1000 feet. That's not a helluva lot. Next time your rolling out on a runway, note the distance remaining boards. Imagine being at the 5 board and lobbing a nuke at the bad guys at the 4 board.

http://www.atomicmuseum.com/tour/cw3.cfm

[Widger]

Quote:
...They are either all dead or retired
No we're not!

Check out the Black Omegas outside! Quick......Run......By the way there are several on here in contravention of the new DIN on official photographs.

[spectre150]

Just This Once your post made me chuckle - similar memories myself. I don't miss WST at all. Was quite funny walking the Q compound looking for a 'key' misplaced by my nose gunner while he was out with his wedge practising his golf chip shot though.:ugh:

[GPMG]

I don't see how mounting Nukes on a cruise is the answer.
1 MIRV per cruise.
8 Cruise per Sub?

Compared to 48-96 MIRV per Vangaurd.

So each Vanguard would be replaced by 6 - 12 attack subs carrying torps and cruise?

Also Vanguards are a damn site more difficult to detect and destroy than a frigate or aircraft or aircraft hangers.

[Blacksheep]

Also Vanguards are a damn site more difficult to detect and destroy than a frigate or aircraft or aircraft hangers.True, but the idea is to prepare for the next war not the last one. The last one was The Cold War. It lasted for more than twenty years and thankfully, nobody blinked. The tridents are part of that scenario. "You strike first and we still have enough unreachable weapons to annihilate all your cities and everyone in them."

The world has changed in the meantime and the threat is now from rogue states whose actions are quite unpredictable. The message is, use just one nuclear weapon on anyone, anywhere, anytime and its goodbye to your entire military capability. Smaller weapons, greater spread, battlefield capable, for taking out armies without the need for close up ground combat.

Though that Davy Crockett thing might be a bit too close for comfort... :eek:

[spectre150]

JTO - well I hesitated, very briefly, but overcame the desire to hit delete. I figured that there was nothing classified in mentioning the Q compound or my pilot losing his <ahem> car key :rolleyes: Probably not a good idea to start a 'when I was on Q' thread though ....

[GPMG]

MIRVS can be targeted for different locations. Each Trident can hit 8-12 different targets. One Missile could take out an enemies air capability in one go.

And prepping for the next war? As you say in 20 years we have gone from all out mutual annihilation against Russia to rogue states and an axis of evil. What happens if we get rid of the big bang stuff and arm up with Tactical Nukes and then in 20 years time we are suddenly faced with a resurgence of the USSR or China decides that it has had enough etc etc.

Trident style weapons can do everything a cruise can do and it can also wipe out life on earth....which is nice :)

[woptb]

I would pity anyone having to go through 'specials' cert training,I know I loathed it! Surely there are still some remaining in the RAF with 'bucket of sunshine' training & as the last WE177's were only phased out in 1998 there must be tens of suppliers with some in their shed:}

[Rocket2]

"I would pity anyone having to go through 'specials' cert training,I know I loathed it! "
Not forgetting the need to do 100 day checks that seemed to take - well 100 days when the test gear or system went wrong (most of the time) - pleaaase!:mad:

[scribbler614]

"I suppose it will be cheaper to have a plane sat in a hanger waiting to launch a Nuke than it is to keep a sub underwater..."

Quite the reverse, according to MOD! see link, and passage pasted below from the recent Govt White Paper, explaining how the deterrent could be given back to aviators? A fleet of converted airliners!
Forget it, basically.
The analysts conclude it would be the worst and most expensive of four options (New submarines;Tridents fired from surface ships; land-based silos; air launched stand-off missiles).
I have to say the whole thing reads to me rather as though the authors had their answer in advance. Surely there are more viable air-launched options than this? All academic, as subs are the chosen way forward, and probably rightly so.

For link, see p35 of:

http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/AC00DD79-76D6-4FE3-91A1-6A56B03C092F/0/DefenceWhitePaper2006_Cm6994.pdf


----------------

Option 1:
A long-range aircraft equipped with cruise missiles

Platform:
• 20 large converted civil aircraft plus 20 refuelling aircraft
• Range (with refuelling) in excess of 20,000km
• Capacity to carry four large cruise missiles
Delivery system:
• Subsonic cruise missile (new development or off-the-shelf purchase)
• Range up to 3,000 km
• New nuclear warhead

Infrastructure and Support:
• Two large main operating bases (one new, one a modified existing base)
• New nuclear storage facilities and command and control system
• Extensive new training burden

Operational Posture:
• Impracticable to sustain continuous airborne deterrent patrols
• Aircraft normally retained at high alert on the ground

B-6 Assessment: The combination of a long-range aircraft armed with
cruise missiles suffers from several major drawbacks. The whole system would
be vulnerable particularly to preemptive attacks: whilst on the ground, to
conventional and nuclear missile threats, and to terrorist attacks, and once airborne, to surface-to-air and air-to-air missiles.

Similar concerns would also apply to the airborne refuelling tankers, which would be essential if the aircraft were to be able to meet the requirement to be able to deter threats anywhere in the world.
Cruise missiles are also significantly more vulnerable to being intercepted than
ballistic missiles because they fly at much lower speed and altitude.
B-7 Even with a fleet of 20 large aircraft, we would also face a major challenge in terms of guaranteeing a sufficient capability to establish an effective deterrence posture. Also we had concerns about meeting readiness requirements: measures to increase the readiness of aircraft on the ground would be visible and therefore potentially escalatory in a crisis.

B-8 Finally, in terms of costs, assuming a fleet of 20 aircraft, this option was the most expensive of the four generic options, with through-life costs more than double those of a submarine option, the main cost drivers being procurement of the new aircraft and delivery system and the extensive new
infrastructure requirements. Overall, this was the most expensive and by some distance the least capable option.

[Pontius Navigator]

"I suppose it will be cheaper to have a plane sat in a hanger waiting to launch a Nuke than it is to keep a sub underwater...".

This might be a thread jump, but "ex-Northwest Airlines trial new missile launching ports for new UK independent deterrent."

:}