Why did the RAF give up nuclear weapons...

[fantaman]

Afternoon all,

I’m doing a bit of a project with work and part of its includes giving a 20 to 30 minute talk on a specific subject. PPRuNe is always good for getting the opinions, views and sarcastic comments of others and I don’t think there are any real wrong answers, just my/your opinion?

The question I’ve been posed is…

"What were the prime factors which prompted the RAF to give up its tactical nuclear weapons? Should RAF procurement plans once again consider the merits of long range, dual role (nuclear/conventional) stand-off bombers in support of distant theatres of operations?"

I've spent the last week or so trawling the internet and I've learned things that I didn't know existed, so all in all its been a worthwhile effort.

I’ve found out the difference between a tactical weapon and a strategic weapon and their uses.

However, it would appear that the only real reason the RAF gave up its nuclear role was that the end of the cold war was fast approaching and there was no real need to replace it. The UK was then left with one single nuclear system, TRIDENT.

There was a consultation in the 70's on whether the POLARIS replacement would be best suited to an air or land/sea based launch and we opted for the latter.

We didn’t replace the V force bombers as we had Tornado, which was reported to be inferior in terms of delivering nuclear weapons and no real replacement for The V force. Does anyone else think we need to look at another long range bomber? The US and Russia still do and they are forging ahead with replacement programmes?

I’d welcome anyone’s opinions and views!

Thanks

Martin

[ian16th]

My understanding is that the RAF did not 'give up' the nuclear deterrent role, it was taken away from them and given to the RN.

[Fitter2]

One reason is the recognition in the present world of the need for security both in 'ready for use' areas and in transit for regular maintenence. During the era of cruise missiles did you ever encounter one of the convoys on the M4 near Chievely leaving or entering the mystery intersection?

Anyway, we don't want them rolling off bomb trolleys on the way round the peri-track......

[ahwalk01]

There have been some excellent BBC documentaries over the past couple of years, my understanding is that the advent of ICBMs and anti aircraft weaponry meant that (once they had taken the U2 out) the V bombers became more vulnerable - they started off painted white for high altitude ops in the early 60s and then it was decided they should get camo paint and be flown at low level. They weren't designed for this and performed poorly so rather than renew the airborne platform, they decided to change tack with the Navy and join up with the US in terms of development of a pooled resource.

[NutLoose]

They were carried by other post the V force.

[ahwalk01]

I forgot the canberra etc

[ORAC]

"What were the prime factors which prompted the RAF to give up its tactical nuclear weapons?"

Hansard: (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199596/cmhansrd/vo951213/text/51213w19.htm)

WE177 Free-fall Bomb

Mr. Foulkes: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration led to the decision to withdraw the WE.177 in 1998; what was the original date for withdrawal; and on what date that decision was taken. [5165]

Mr. Arbuthnot: The decision to withdraw WE177 from service by the end of 1998, announced on 4 April 1995, Official Report, column 1097, was reached in the light of the good progress being made in providing Trident with a sub-strategic capability. This capability will be fully robust when Vigilant enters service in 1998 and there is no requirement for us to maintain two systems in the sub-strategic role after that point. We had previously assessed that WE177 had the potential to remain in service until the early years of the next century.

Trident Warhead Modification Programme (http://www.swordofdamocles.org/pdf/modernisation.pdf)

[fantaman]

Thanks all for your replies. I've probably learned more in the last 20 minutes than I have in the last week!

ORAC, thanks in particular to you. Thats a very handy piece of information that I hadn't seen before :ok:

[Pontius Navigator]

Reading ORAC' s reply suggests that money was a driver. There would have been a significant engineering cost in maintaining the WE177, they needed regular expensive servicing. Then the cost of security at the bomber bases would also be significant.

To use them in out of area operations, aside from the philosophical argument, would have been difficult. We had only one mounting base - Akrotiri. To deploy to a host nation base could be problematical.

Ship borne deployment would have been feasible using SHAR, the Barriers were not cleared.

The advantage for a sub-strategic system was that HMG could neither confirm nor deny ...

The big disadvantage is that no one would know until it went bang and a tactical launch could attract a strategic response. A better solution would be a nuclear SLCM.

[fantaman]

Pontius Navigator makes a good point that I've seen else where and that I'll be making during my talk.

Strategic weapons could be used for a tactical purpose and vice versa. Some would argue that the use of a tactical weapon in a tactical role would still be a strategic decesion, since it would change the nature of the tactical war?

[newt]

The tactical weapon was just that. Used in a tactical way to let the enemy know we were serious or were running out of ideas before resorting to the strategic weapons. I doubt there was any strategic planning concerned. Naturally, I refer to the selective release of said tactical weapons. On pressing the strategic button, all systems were released!:ok:

[sandiego89]

I do find the discussion of "sub-strategic" uses for clearly strategic weapons, such as Trident interesting. At least in the USA this has been discussed and generally dismissed, mainly because how would the enemy or others know that the launch was a tactical launch, and not the first shot in a strategic nuclear exchange? There were some thoughts to putting a conventional warhead on ICBM's, and you would in theory have the ability to put ordinace on any target in most of the the world in around 30 minutes.

Threat must be considered when looking at long range heavy strike/bombers. With the end of the cold war, I do not think the UK was looking at too many scenarios where heavier bombers were required. Heavy bombers are usefull for major peer conflict, and when long range, heavy load and endurance are required. How many of those do you expect to fight? Perhaps the threat and cost/benefit analysis didn't support a heavy bomber force. Such a force is very expensive to build and maintain, and tactical jets can likely get you an acceptable performance for most missions. The main thing you loose is long range capabilty when no airbases are close enough to the fight. So you loose strategic delivery (Cold war) and long range bomber strike (Falklands).

Yes the USA and Russia remain committed to the long range bomber. I see Russia as mainly staying in the game in attempts to remain relevant, and wave their sword. The USA does so as it remains committed to global pressence, being able to defeat any peer nation, and can afford to do so. (I won't go into the polictics of this being right or wrong). Any major conflict the USA is likely to be involved with will be far away from Stateside bases, and will require the range and performance of long range strike.

I think it is OK that the UK has stepped away from the heavy bomber. Perhaps they will find a time when the would have been usefull, but that is a risk that was calculated.

[ORAC]

But the failure of Tripwire was that the immediate use of strategic weapons wasn't believable; hence the move to Flexible Response and the addition of battlefield and intermediate weapons to provide coupling and make the strategic deterrent believable again.

In the absence of battlefield and intermediate range weapons the additional of a sub-strategic capability to Trident adds the coupling, exactly for the reason that the possibility that the use at one level could be confused as use at the strategic level.

[Fg Off Bloggs]

Operated with WE177 on both Buccaneer and Tornado GR1 and stood Strike QRA for many a year in Germany until the wall came down in 1988 - that was the start of it! The so-called peace dividend (Perestroika et al)! With no pun intended, the writing was on the wall from that day forth for an air-launched nuclear capability!

What of the future? Well, you'd have to work bloody hard and underhandedly to winkle Trident (the Nuke capability) off the submariners for a start! Money would not run to two systems.

BUT

We have an air-launched missile on inventory, which could take a nuclear warhead (once 'twas considered as a research option) and that would have to be the preferred delivery method (Long Range Stand Off rather than, at best, Tossing it from 4 nms!)

HOWEVER

Since SR(A)1244 was binned whilst I was in OR in the mid-90s I think the chances of resurrecting an airborne nuclear capability are pretty remote!

NB. Unusually, but perhaps not surprisingly, Google is not much help on SR(A)1244!

Bloggs:suspect:

[Lordflasheart]

Completely flummoxed by Mr Arbuthnot's words quoted from Hansard in Orac's post No 8 – Tried to get me 'ed around the idea of the Vigilant T.1 conducting 'sub-strategic' missions - Well it was a good lunch with the Major :ok:. Once I'd worked out Mr Arbuthnot was actually referring to a boat, I perked up, had a quick shufti at Orac's link to the Trident Modernisation (38 pp – full read later) and found this site – which helped me with 'sub-strategic' and might help the OP's task.

United Kingdom Nuclear Forces (http://fas.org/nuke/guide/uk/slbm/d-5.htm)

BTW fantaman – will you be talking to work colleagues or the W.I or are you on a learned study course ?


LFH

[Heathrow Harry]

Arbuthnot's words are straight flim-flam

As Sanddiego points out the people who have serious kit (such as Mr Putin) are going to know very quickly that someone has launched from a SSBN

They aren't going to sit around and wait for even more missiles - they'll just fire the lot (or at least they MAY fire the lot)

Unless you actually stated in advance "the RN is going to fire a single Trident N warhead at Buenos Aires/Damascus/Brussels (delete as required)" you'd be taking a hell of a risk...................

like the Russians or the Chinese saying fire one at them and we'll fire one at you

[Terrorfex]

Fantaman,

It might interest you to know that the Coalition Government's recent white paper on the future of the country's nuclear deterrent includes extensive analysis and evaluation on restoring the capability to deploy air-delivered nuclear weapons, in place of replacing TRIDENT with a like-for-like subsea-delivered capability.

You can find it here (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/212745/20130716_Trident_Alternatives_Study.pdf). Good read if nothing else.

[ahwalk01]

There was a change in accounting at the MoD as I understood that meant that previously the deterrent was treated separately as a security item.

Renewal from 2015 is going to be more difficult as it is now a defence line item which can be whittled down.

Getting someone with the right technical background to explain the value of CASD and its relevance in the modern era - just getting politicians to understand the value of deterrence and know what a second strike capability is, will be much tougher.

[woptb]

Carriage of specials on Nimrod was only ever designed for tactical usage.
No idea why Nimrod doesn't carry them anymore:}

[Pontius Navigator]

Woptb, nawty bouy.

One word:

Machrihanish

[Pontius Navigator]

Some would argue that the use of a tactical weapon in a tactical role would still be a strategic decesion, since it would change the nature of the tactical war?

The main usage has developed in the US/NATO dialogue.

Any invasion by one State against another, with conquest as the aim, is Strategic. Falklands War was a Strategic war fought at a tactical level.

Now there were potential conflicts where there was no Strategic (world) intent but such massive conventional assault that only tactical nukes could have stemmed the assault. At the time there was no realistic counter-force threat to the UK.

I think I can say that such a plan today would be unconscious. This leads on to the question, who exactly would HMG consider a valid target for a tactical strike?

[Hangarshuffle]

Pakistan test-fires new cruise missile Ra?ad ? The Express Tribune (http://tribune.com.pk/story/831544/pakistan-test-fires-new-cruise-missile-raad/)


Other countries like Pakistan now well on their way with miltary technology. Wonder if this will make its way into the wrong peoples hands? Presumably these are cheaper than ballistic missiles, easier to make and adapt for nuclear delivery?
Comments posted on the tribunes website make for very pessimistic reading for the future.

[reynoldsno1]

Machrihanish
or Sigonella ... once upon a time :suspect:

[Davef68]

Like most things post-Cold War/Peace Dividend, the over-riding factor was money.

I recall SRAM-T was one contender, but Bush senior cancelled that in 1991 (However it was still being offered to the UK) and there was joint work with the French on ASLP (Cancelled when we withdrew as they weren't prepared to fund it 100% themselves)

[Pontius Navigator]

One thing about the RAF tactical nukes not mentioned was their purpose.

Were they a deterrent against overwhelming conventional assault, against enemy use of nukes, or simply a weapon in the arsenal?

Against the Soviet Union the first two were undoubtedly true. Against a lower grade nuclear power or conventional client state such as Iraq under Sadam, were they credible?

As for nuclear depth bombs, their range was short so they would only be effective with an accurate attack. Modern torpedoes, in the 80s offered a better chance of a hit without the tactical consequences of the nuclear explosion.

[LowObservable]

Gen. Jim Cartwright was a huge fan of Conventional Prompt Global Strike. So were some people in Congress who funded CTM (Conventional Trident Modification), a single-warhead sorta-guided Trident RV. Most others, including almost all the nuclear weapon operators, thought the whole idea sucked donkey :mad:s and it was ditched as soon as Hoss left the scene. There are some remnants of it within OSD, but it is going nowhere.

[alfred_the_great]

I'm surprised there's been no discussion of assured second strike capability.

[Pontius Navigator]

AtG, that is very much a strategic issue that the RAF, AFAIK, has never professed to have. Launch on warning was the only option.

Tactical missions would only have been feasible if their bases survived the initial strike.

[turbroprop]

I always was concerned about nuclear depth charges. Had visions of poor sailors rolling then off the back of the boat and some Captain in his best Michael Chaine voice quoting things from the Italian Job.

Read somewhere about nuclear tipped air to air missiles.

One I would love to have had a go with would have been the nuclear hand grenade!

[BATCO]

…heavily caveated by letting you know that I was never involved in targeting or employment of such.

To my mind a use for a 'tactical' nuclear weapon (e.g. WE177 or Lance) in the Cold War scenario was to employ it/them against a WP operational manoeuvre group that had penetrated NATO territory to great depth. The aim of their use being to 1. stop the OMG, 2. signal a step up in the well known flexible response policy, whilst 3. limiting the strike to the OMG on NATO territory as opposed to a target on WP (especially Soviet) territory. And finally, 4.signalling that further escalation was still possible by extending targets to WP/Soviet territory (which I would understand to be strategic in nature).

Once such a Cold War/WP scenario had gone, the potential targets or opportunity to use a tactical nuclear weapon went too. Add the cost of ownership (sy, trg, ring fencing delivery a/c etc) vs any potential residual benefit, and such weapons lost their role in UK inventory.

Hope that helps.

Regards
Batco

[Exnomad]

I worked on the cariage systems for Nukes, incl WE177 working with RAE in te late 60s.
Canberra and Buccaneer were so equiped as well as V Bombers
RN choppers were equipped for Nukes as well.
No prospect for RAF without V bomber or B52 equivalent.

[Pontius Navigator]

Batco, I think one of our NATO allies would not have been thrilled with your plan. While it was certainly a plan to use atomic demolition mines, Blue Peacock, which would have been on the west of the IGB the preferred option was to strike WPC airfields and second echelon forces while doing what was possible to stem the initial assault by conventional means.

[ORAC]

Read somewhere about nuclear tipped air to air missiles.
1VZ7FQHTaR4

[Pontius Navigator]

Exnomad, you are correct that a free-fall WE177 or its replacement would need a bomber, the Tornado is one such platform. The F35 could do the job too.

[Pontius Navigator]

Can't see ORACs link but the F102/106 could have used the Genie, rather good for disrupting a bomber cell.

In the early 50s SAC had planned for mutually supporting bomber groups with only some aircraft being bomb carriers. It wad no doubt believed that the Russians would use a similar cell tactic.

[Whenurhappy]

Wasn't TASM (Tactical Air to Surface Missile) project designed to replace the WE 177 free-fall option?

[Davef68]

They test fitted a Genie to a Lightning, in a belly mount

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Ah, the AIR-2 Genie. Finally AD gets to join the Not F#cking About Club !

There's one in the museum at Omaha (slobber, drool, idiot grin)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a5/AIR-2A_Genie_2.jpg/300px-AIR-2A_Genie_2.jpg

The CF101 Voodoo could carry 2 Genies, and stood QRA with it from '65 to '84

http://www.f-101voodoo.com/photo_gallery/var/resizes/Armament/CF-101_fires_Genie.jpg?m=1391223537

[woptb]

I worked on the cariage systems for Nukes, incl WE177 working with RAE in te late 60s.
Canberra and Buccaneer were so equiped as well as V Bombers
RN choppers were equipped for Nukes as well.
No prospect for RAF without V bomber or B52 equivalent.

I guess flight profile for a Wasp would be drop,then come to the hover ? Otherwise known as the 'lets get it over with' profile !

[Exnomad]

Tornado could have carried WE177 or equiv, but Buccaneer, V bombers and Canberra were the last with internal store carriage.
The performance of Aircraft with multiple external stores is heavily degraded, their survival during an interdiction would be doubtful.

[Pontius Navigator]

Exnomad, 520kts trumps a bomb bay every time.

Even the Buccaneer needed underwing pylons for its 'defensive aids suite'

[LowObservable]

Lightning/Genie?

rly?

[MAINJAFAD]

The nuke AD weapon was primarily designed to guarantee a kill against single high speed target at any aspect, not take out formations. The reason, the chances of the weapon actually hitting the target are very low and though the weapon would proximity fuze with a near miss, the target will outrun the resultant blast / fragment effects of the warhead (as what happened with Patriot against the Iraqi Al Hussians (Modified Scuds) in 1991. The Patriots warheads mostly detonated behind the target and did no damage). Try outrunning the effects of a low yield nuclear detonation. (Effective lethal blast effects of a 200 Lb HE warhead at 40,000ft were around a radius of 100 Ft. The kill radius by blast of the AIR-2 was ten times that and at 100 Ft the target is instant plasma as it's within the fireball) The other reason (the the case of the AIR-2) is most of the USAF interceptors in the era were fitted with AIM-4 which wasn't the most impressive weapon as regards reliability or 2.25 inch FFAR which wasn't the most impressive weapon as regards accuracy. Genie didn't suffer from either of those issues.

[MAINJAFAD]

For all personal wanting have a play at nuclear targeting, you may find this site a bit of fun.

NUKEMAP by Alex Wellerstein (http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/?lat=40.7143528&lng=-74.0059731&zm=8&kt=100000)

Does weapon yield defaults from Davey Crockett to the full design yield of Tsar Bomba.

[Davef68]

Lightning/Genie?

rly?


There is a closed file record in the National Archive

http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C2645207?descriptiontype=Full&ref=AIR+2/17341

There was a pic of the trial installation in Tim McClelland's book on the Lightning. The missile was carried in a recess built into the belly.

[MAINJAFAD]

Project Cancelled had an example of 2 AIR-2 on modified side pylons on the Lightning, though it is stated in the book that the intent was to only issue one per aircraft which would have most likely caused asymmetric problems. Totally academic as the defence council stopped all work on defensive UK nuclear weapons in 1960 due to lack of fissile material and decided that it would all be used for offensive stuff. Killed the Nuclear armed Bloodhound 3 as well.

[ricardian]

An interesting read (https://nsarchive.wordpress.com/2016/04/04/cold-war-nuclear-target-lists-updated-in-nuclear-vault-posting/)

[glad rag]

Tornado could have carried WE177 or equiv, but Buccaneer, V bombers and Canberra were the last with internal store carriage.
The performance of Aircraft with multiple external stores is heavily degraded, their survival during an interdiction would be doubtful.
http://nuclear-weapons.info/images/017-Tornado-laydown.png

[MAINJAFAD]

There is a closed file record in the National Archive

Lightning: air to air rocket (GENIE) | The National Archives (http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C2645207?descriptiontype=Full&ref=AIR+2/17341)

There was a pic of the trial installation in Tim McClelland's book on the Lightning. The missile was carried in a recess built into the belly.
Dave

The fact that the RAF could have got the Genie under Project E is covered in a meeting about Air Defence at the Defence Research Policy Committee in Oct 1958. (National Archives file AVIA 65/1547 - Air Defence of the UK). The text of the meeting below covers what was said at the time.

8. A defence in depth could be provided either by a fighter defence or by a long range guided weapon defence. We have no long range guided weapon project in our programme. The nearest American project of this kind is BOMARC which has had a very troublesome development-career and is by no means out of the wood yet. On the other hand, we have in the Lightning a very promising fighter and since, in any case, we must maintain some fighter component in the defence for as far ahead as we can see, it seems only sensible to make use of the work which has already been done on the Lightning. The Lightning, armed with FIRESTREAK, has an operational ceiling of about 50,000 feet and, in the electronic jamming conditions to be expected, will be capable of competing only with a subsonic bomber threat. It is, therefore, completely inadequate to meet the potential supersonic bomber threat in 1963, but as it has already attained a speed of Mach 1.9, it could cope with such a threat provided it was equipped with a collision course weapon system.

9. The Americans have indicated that they are prepared to make available on Project E term their nuclear headed collision course rocket GENIE. This weapon could be in service by 1962. It would make the Lightning capable of meeting Mach 2 bombers up to 65,000 feet. The development costs involved in fitting this weapon in the Lightning would be of the order of £2m.

[Less Hair]

Some german Tornados in their war role can carry US owned and controlled B61s stored in Germany if those weapons are released by the US President.

[glad rag]

Some german Tornados in their war role can carry US owned and controlled B61s stored in Germany if those weapons are released by the US President.

And they had the facility to buddy refuel this greatly increasing the range of the aircraft...

[Less Hair]

Add one way routings or diversions on the way back to max out range and they are some serious asset.

[Shackman]

Apart from a very brief mention earlier in the thread, there were other nuclear weapons around such as for the maritime scenario. I even had one trialled in a Chinook one day to see if it would fit (it did), although i didn't fancy the dispatch and escape manoevres.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Completely flummoxed by Mr Arbuthnot's words quoted from Hansard in Orac's post No 8 – Tried to get me 'ed around the idea of the Vigilant T.1 conducting 'sub-strategic' missions - Well it was a good lunch with the Major :ok:. Once I'd worked out Mr Arbuthnot was actually referring to a boat, I perked up, had a quick shufti at Orac's link to the Trident Modernisation (38 pp – full read later) and found this site – which helped me with 'sub-strategic' and might help the OP's task.

United Kingdom Nuclear Forces (http://fas.org/nuke/guide/uk/slbm/d-5.htm)

BTW fantaman – will you be talking to work colleagues or the W.I or are you on a learned study course ?


LFH
I ran the latter part of the Vigilant T1 certification programme and can assure everybody, without fear of breaching the official secrets act, that it lacked a nuclear delivery capability.

G

[chevvron]

Afternoon all,




We didn’t replace the V force bombers as we had Tornado, which was reported to be inferior in terms of delivering nuclear weapons and no real replacement for The V force. Does anyone else think we need to look at another long range bomber? The US and Russia still do and they are forging ahead with replacement programmes?



Thanks

Martin
The TSR 2 was supposed to replace the V Force long before AFVG was resurrected as MRCA (Tornado).

[tornadoken]

RAF - alone - did not give up nukes.

From 23/5/63 "strategic" stores in Bomber Command joined all other nukes in UK hands to be under NATO/CENTO/SEATO targeting. BAOR then had nuclear-shell howitzers, SSMs, (from 10/70) MADM mountain movers; Coastal from 1/68 would have NDBs; to 15/8/63 Bomber Command SMF had Thor IRBM: all these were US-supplied; RAFG had US-, NEAF/FEAF had UK-built gravity Bombs, as did RN Strike carriers. (Bomber, then) Strike Command had Blue Steel ASM, UK warhead, to 21/12/70, and UK-built gravity Bombs.

NATO's N.Atlantic Council would tussle with "tactical" nukes: could they actually be used? 10/83 Montebello Decision removed MADMs and reduced howitzers. Through 1984/86 RAFG, RAF/UK, Luftwaffe and It.AF deployed IDS Tornado with "tactical" US B-61/UK WE177B/C; RN had WE177A in NDB and Bomb variants, and RAF Buccaneers for maritime strike. Nimrods lifted Mk.57 NDB from Macrihanish, St.Mawgan and Sigonella.

Berlin Wall comes down. 12/9/90-15/2/94 Nations make a series of Statements, Charters and Treaties, collectively "End of the Cold War": that is the precise A to OP's Q. BAOR's last nuclear howitzers and SSMs gone by 15/6/91; Nimrod NDBs by 11/91; RN WE177A(NDB), 21/3/92; RAF Buccaneer WE177A, 31/3/94; RAFG WE177C, 5/95; UK Tornado WE177B, 31/3/98.

It has been stated that Vanguard SSBNs, operational 15/12/94, carry warheads capable of sub-strategic (?100kt) yield and from 2011 of "bunker-buster" precision.

[TLB]

The reason, the chances of the weapon actually hitting the target are very low and though the weapon would proximity fuze with a near miss

Actually, the Genie was not supposed to hit the target. Rather, the steering solution was designed so the the warhead would explode slightly ahead of, and slightly below, the target's trajectory.

[Pontius Navigator]

@TLB, the target was also expected to be a formation of 3 or more similar perhaps to the B52 cells in Vietnam.

[chopper2004]

TLB

Was not that a Russian tactic too? In the late George Hall's book Top Gun (Presidio Press circa 1987) at the end chapter, discussing Warsaw Pact threats / tactics mentions the Viktor Belenko (Mig 25 defector 1976 then advisor to Top Gun) said once the 'CARPET' word /order issued in mass ACM between us and them - that a nuke would be detonated to wipe out the opposition fighters. He said unfortunately it would also wipe out some of his fighters but it was small price to pay,

cheers

[BEagle]

Researching the history of XH538, the Vulcan our crew used for Double Top Phase 2 and Giant Voice 1979, I discovered that it was once used for dummy Skybolt trials.

It looked pretty daunting carrying 2 missiles - each weighing 5000 kg with a 1.1 MT Red Snow warhead. If I recall correctly, the UK was going to field some 70+ Skybolts....

But then came MacNamara and eventually Polaris - and the RAF lost its strategic nuclear capability, with WE177 considered a 'tactical' weapon. Albeit in -B form, a pretty big one!

[Pontius Navigator]

I wonder what the CEP would have been. Consider a bomber position accurate of 400 yards, target position error iro 70 yards, you start with an error of 500 yards. What would the missile have added, 400 yards or more?

Still, 850 kts air burst would have been a bit noisy at the DGZ.

*RS was megaton range but actually just below 1MT.

[recceguy]

Quote:

Some german Tornados in their war role can carry US owned and controlled B61s stored in Germany if those weapons are released by the US President.

Great for them.

Some French Mirage 2000N-K3 and Rafale-F3 can carry French owned and controlled TNA thermonuclear warhead (300 Kt) launched by the airborne missile ASMP (circa 100 km range at low-altitude, Mach 3) if those weapons are released by the French President. :ok:

[Bill16STN]

... couldn't help notice these two adjacent topics.
I wonder if perchance they are related?

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1553/25704144273_ed92759cf6_z.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/Faoszg)Pprune (https://flic.kr/p/Faoszg) by Bill16STN (https://www.flickr.com/photos/bill16stn/), on Flickr

[TLB]

[I wonder what the CEP would have been. Consider a bomber position accurate of 400 yards, target position error iro 70 yards, you start with an error of 500 yards. What would the missile have added, 400 yards or more?

If you are referring to the AIR 2-A Genie, the CEP was very high. We qualified all our CF-101 Voodoos (MG-13 radar/fire control system) by live firing ATR 2-A training rockets at Tyndall AFB annually. The actual CEP had to be within a few mils of the X, Y & Z coordinates to qualify.

If memory serves, the Fire Control System provided a modified lead collision solution, aiming the ballistic, non-maneuvering rocket to detonate the equivalent of 0.7 seconds of target travel ahead of the target and about 500 feet below, thus allowing the warhead fireball to fully develop.

Very high PK against the targets we would pursue in NORAD.

[Pontius Navigator]

TLB, sorry, I was referring to BEagles post as could be deduced from RS, DGZ and yield of 850kt cf Genie at 1.5kt.

[ricardian]

Interesting information about USAF nuclear mishaps (http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb475/)

[cornish-stormrider]

Interesting reading is mentioned in that linky

I have both the Goldsboro accident and Command and Control on the iPad book thingy and are good if worrying reads

[glad rag]

Quote:

Some german Tornados in their war role can carry US owned and controlled B61s stored in Germany if those weapons are released by the US President.

Great for them.

Some French Mirage 2000N-K3 and Rafale-F3 can carry French owned and controlled TNA thermonuclear warhead (300 Kt) launched by the airborne missile ASMP (circa 100 km range at low-altitude, Mach 3) if those weapons are released by the French President. :ok:
Your 30 years late mate

[ricardian]

I was a Telegraphist in the RAF 1959-73 and can thus better placed than most to appreciate the dilemma the comms people found themselves in during the Cuban crisis (http://www.emmitsburg.net/archive_list/articles/misc/cww/2010/cmc3.htm)

[Pontius Navigator]

Ricardian, can you explain your last? We're You a telegraphist. or was it a quite? Clicking on it takes you to Cold War Warriors: John Murphys': The Cuban Missile Crisis - "Execute Scabbards '63 " (http://www.emmitsburg.net/archive_list/articles/misc/cww/2010/cmc3.htm) a disconnected link from your statement.

[ricardian]

Ricardian, can you explain your last? We're You a telegraphist. or was it a quite? Clicking on it takes you to Cold War Warriors: John Murphys': The Cuban Missile Crisis - "Execute Scabbards '63 " (http://www.emmitsburg.net/archive_list/articles/misc/cww/2010/cmc3.htm) a disconnected link from your statement.
Sorry, re-reading my post shows it does not make sense and should read "and I am thus better placed than most".
When you work in a commcen you have the responsibility to ensure that all messages leaving that commcen are duly authorised. If you have any doubts you should check with the originator. If you still have doubts then you have no option but to actually transmit the message and only then take the matter higher (much, much higher if needs be).

[salad-dodger]

It wasn't that difficult to work out what you were alluding to ricardian.

S-D

[Roadster280]

I used to work in a military training establishment. One of the Instructional Officers had been an RAF radar tech in an earlier life. He spoke about the H2S sets used on the V-bombers.

"It wasn't very accurate - but it didn't really matter; it was a nuclear bomb".

Indeed; I don't suppose it really matters if a 1MT airburst is on the other side of town.

[Pontius Navigator]

Roadsters, it would have been a small town.

At high altitude, after an evasive bomb run allowing for combat degradation, accuracy would have been better than 3,000 yards. The errors had more to do with the compass systems and offset aiming.

At low level we expected to crater a runway with at least one bomb*








We only carried one.

[Wander00]

F-ing big crater methinks

[Roadster280]

Thanks PN.

I looked at this nifty tool:

NUKEMAP by Alex Wellerstein (http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/?&kt=1000&lat=51.5557739&lng=-1.7797176&hob_opt=1&hob_psi=5&hob_ft=10245&crater=1&casualties=1&psi=200,20,5&therm=_2nd-50&zm=11)

And nuked Swindon with a 1MT airburst optimized for overpressure. Apparently 113K dead, slightly fewer wounded. The 5psi ring seems to entirely cover the town.

I'm not sure if this tool is a splendid toy or absolutely horrific. I tried it on Manchester, same settings. Half a million dead with one weapon.

I imagine 30 years ago, primitive versions of this kind of simulator existed in bunkers and were somewhat classified!

[West Coast]

At low level we expected to crater a runway with at least one bomb*

Cratered the airport unless it was some peewee little nuke dialed down to its lowest setting.

[Pontius Navigator]

W C, no, just the runway, 400 yards wide and 120 feet deep. Bit of spoil and blow the glass out of the terminal I guess :).

Seriously, an airfield with 4 HAS spurs off the ends of the runway might have some aircraft survive, operating surfaces OTOH would need a bit of polygonal and smoothing.

[pasta]

And nuked Swindon with a 1MT airburst optimized for overpressure. Apparently 113K dead, slightly fewer wounded.
An explosion like that above Swindon would cause hundreds of million pounds worth of improvements...

[Pontius Navigator]

Not to mention the staff college

[MAINJAFAD]

I see Nukemap has been updated to do cratering as well, Nice.

[Wander00]

Would it improve Slough as well?

[Kitbag]

Would it improve Slough as well?

Only cosmetically

[ricardian]

https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/14095977_1804828133084163_4407852763054862294_n.jpg?oh=ca9ad 28ec485a6e6a5c905d188e5ed12&oe=5848F8D9

[BEagle]

But a hand grenade is rather more deadly than that WE177A training round....:rolleyes:

In any case, the 177A was for girls. WE177B (B for big) was the real thermonuclear big boy's toy :ok:!

[Heathrow Harry]

not if it falls on you.............

[t7a]

And that one is a 'B'.

[Peter G-W]

The best-before date on the underside is Feb 74 as well.

[TEEEJ]

8pm BBC2 Sunday 4th September 2016

A Very British Deterrent
Sunday 8pm

Length 1 hour
News & Documentaries, Features
The story of the remarkable events, power relationships and secret deals done half a century ago to secure Britain's very first submarine-launched nuclear missiles.

BBC Two - A Very British Deterrent (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07v3vzz)

[pasta]

The best-before date on the underside is Feb 74 as well.
Just be thankful it has a best-before date, and not a use-by date...

[Tankertrashnav]

That was an interesting programme TEEJ

When I was a kid I lived In Carlisle and if the wind was from the east you could hear the Blue Streak engines on test at Spadeadam. Surprised there was no mention of the Thor sites, when I went to do OCTU at Feltwell in 64 the Thors hadn't long gone and some of the installations were still there.

[Chugalug2]

Yes, thanks too TEEEJ, great prog. I was at Sleaford Tech 59-62, and remember the Soviet satellite and manned launches then (though little flurry at RAFC amongst we low life ;-). I also remember the subsequent Cuba Crisis (at 5FTS RAF Oakington by then). Again it took second billing as it coincided with my 21st!.

All this accounted for the many arms race US systems mentioned in the programme that allowed Super Mac to cherry-pick from, first Skybolt and then Polaris. This was when the special relationship was special both to the USA as well as to the UK. Less so these days of course, with repeated threats to banish us to "the back of the line" (sorry, queue)!

Oh, yes, I also remember the Thors, clearly visible from the main road and not that far inside the wire. It always seemed to me that a malcontent with an air-rifle could have seriously compromised them!

[BEagle]

An interesting programme, but with some glaring omissions.

No real mention of the UK free-fall weapons before 1957, only a scant mention of the H-bomb OP GRAPPLE tests. No mention of Thor IRBM and Blue Steel weapons.... Neither that Skybolt worked correctly on the very day that it was cancelled.

But the Holy Loch episode was very interesting; MacMillan and Kennedy managed to find an equable solution- and without undue interference from Mountbottom.

[Heathrow Harry]

It wasn't meant to be a history of the UK detererent - it was purely about the adoption of Polaris

the clue is in the PR puff....

"deals done half a century ago to secure Britain's very first submarine-launched nuclear missiles."

anyway these are TV people - not historians

[MAINJAFAD]

No real mention of the UK free-fall weapons before 1957, only a scant mention of the H-bomb OP GRAPPLE tests. No mention of Thor IRBM and Blue Steel weapons.... Neither that Skybolt worked correctly on the very day that it was cancelled.

Yep, they forgot about the Skybolt test that did work, however it was mentioned that after McNamara rubbished it publicly, the option of the UK taking the missile on by themselves was a political non starter.

[tartare]

Now come on lads - don't knock Slough.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mlevv9oFuA

[Pontius Navigator]

I have been asked about Valiant targeting. As the Victor and Vulcan force built up the Valiants were assigned to SACEUR as the Tactical Bomber Force. They had US laybown weapons years before WE177 entered Service.

Were they targetted by SACEUR and were those targets in WPC rather than mother Russia?

[rlsbutler]

Thanks Chugalug (post #93). You have reminded me of my entry’s detailed exposure to Thor. I was at Sleaford Tech a year earlier – perhaps they thought better of this little exercise when it might have been your turn.

The day started with a briefing by the Stn Cdr of Hemswell. RAF Police were much in evidence, in white caps, belts and gaiters, which abashed us a bit. The old gentleman remained seated and seemed worn out and perhaps not well. His address was notably dispiriting.

We then made a long visit to RAF Coleby Grange. The squadron of old-timers made us very welcome in their hutted accommodation. We saw one of its three missiles raised, which was pretty impressive.

As a gung-ho young jet-jockey, I found the whole business bizarre. Fortunately I did my bomber Canberra first tour in Singapore, so I did not have QRA to teach me the hard truth of life on the front line in the Cold War. Coleby Grange had given me due warning and for years I more or less put it out of my mind.

[Chugalug2]

risbutler:-
Fortunately I did my bomber Canberra first tour in Singapore

Fortune clearly smiled on you as it did on me. First tour at Changi as a Hastings Co-pilot. The boss claimed half the Pacific to the East, the East African coast to the West, Japan to the North, New Zealand to the South, and "all the intervening territories" as his Parish. I was lucky enough to beat the bounds to his four cardinal points before returning tour-ex to the Swinging Sixties UK. Once clear of RAFC I never returned to that land of ORPs until our 25th Reunion, long after my PVR!

BTW, the Snowdrop that you recall could be obtained in effigy form from Messrs Airfix, together with his attendant Alsatian. "Stop, or I shall release my handler!".

[MAINJAFAD]

BTW, the Snowdrop that you recall could be obtained in effigy form from Messrs Airfix, together with his attendant Alsatian. "Stop, or I shall release my handler!". That kit had a couple of Thors in it as well, but they were attached to the other dog in the kit.

[rlsbutler]

Chugalug:

In my time the bomber Canberra crews of 45 Sqn did Japan and NZ, the Philippines to the East and (thanks to a complete exchange ferry programme) Wroughton and Lyneham to the West. We left Africa to the Cyprus squadrons. In my tour I landed my Canberra at 32 different airfields.

Our parish was the SEATO area, in which we doubtless pinched some of your trade, climbing out towards Brunei or Chiang Mai on a Sunday morning with a VIP or an AOG spare part.

… except (returning to the thread) we had a nuclear weapon. The armourers would wheel it out and we would read check-lists over it, as we might have recited good wishes on a visit to a sick uncle.

Here again the word bizarre came to mind, if we thought about the thing at all. Clearly there was no use for it in SEATO, where we teamed with the Hunter squadron (20 Sqn with FGA9s) to practice conventional interdiction and close air support.

Noone told us why we had the thing. We did no relevant target study. Clearly it was sort–of aimed at China, but China has always been very, very big, while 45 Sqn had eight aircraft on a good day. Best not to think about it.

We did practice the LABS procedure, by which we would have tossed the thing before hurrying away. That was a very precise manoeuvre which others got fatally wrong from time to time. It was lovely to feel completely in control, doing low-level aerobatics on instruments at night and scoring well on the bomb target to boot.

[Pontius Navigator]

risbutler, interesting. We used to visit Tengah to read the check lists at X-site and then Changhi where we did target study. We had routes and all.

Back in UK we later got nice shinny JARIC folders and again drew up all the routes. Unlike the NATO plans we did not do regular study. The targets were tactical rather than strategic and not as far a China.

[rlsbutler]

PN:

Equally interesting.

I assume that what you say would have been different depending on the time period you describe.

I still hang onto the idea that the weapons were moved into the theatre to help defend a supposedly coherent SEATO from the yellow hordes that so alarmed General Macarthy ten years earlier.

I left 45 Sqn a month after the Gulf of Tonkin. As the Vietnam war hotted up, SEATO would be more actively concerned about China advancing through the supposed dominoes. Does that tie with your attack scenarios ?

I assume you represented the V-force, perhaps Vulcans from Akrotiri. I read now that there were 48 weapons in theatre from 1962, so you chaps must have been written into the stategy from the off.

In my time first Victors and then Vulcans arrived in small packets. We took them to be elements of deterrence for the Indonesians and therefore (surely ?) non-nuclear. We did receive Akrotiri Canberras (who had our nuclear role in Cyprus) in the period, but (as far as I know) they exercised entirely as an extension of our offensive support effort.

[Pontius Navigator]

Ris, same time and as it was said, the V-bombers were dual capable.

[tornadoken]

SEATO targeting. This is in public domain, from:
M.S.Navias,Nuclear Weapons & Bitish Strategic Planning 1955-58, Clarendon, 1991, P.40; R.Moore, Nuclear Illusion, Nuclear Reality, Palgrave, 2010, P214; K.Stoddart, Losing an Empire & Finding a Role, Palgrave, 2012, P232:

20 targets in SEATO Plan 4, 11/63-13/2/70: “interdiction upon (PRC+NVA) invading columns”, “targets in Burma, adjacent parts of (PRC)”.

Tengah (RAF/RN Holding Unit) SSA opened, 8/62; base to Sing.ADC, 9/71.

FEAF: Tengah 45 Sqn. 8xCanberra B.15/Red Beard, cleared, LABS release 11/63-13/2/70. SEATO-Secondary Declared: 8/12/63-3/2/69, 32 Sqdn/NEAF, 8xCanberra B.15/Red Beard.

For (almost) all this period an RN Strike carrier was on FE Station with 8-ish Scimitar/Buccaneer S.1/S.2/Red Beard.

11/61-8/71 a Vulcan B.2 Sqn. was Secondary SEATO-Tasked, (probably) HE to 9/66: then -25/2/69 held by 9/35 Sqds/Cottesmore as Matterhorn, then by Waddington Wing (e.g:101 Sqd., 8 a/c Tengah, 1-2/70), with WE177B.

[Pontius Navigator]

Torn, on the last paragraph, we were dual capable with the same tactical target set as above. We were initially planned to use RB. Tengah also had two purpose built 8-ac Sqn buildings for the V-Force. The accommodation was rather better than the make-do in UK.

[tornadoken]

(Wynn's Official History, P.571 matches weapons to platforms: he has US Mk.15/39 Mod 0 & 2 on Valiant; he does not match Red Beard to Vulcan 1 or 2)

Wynn,P.260 has Memorandum of Understanding 8/8/57 on target co-ordination, Bomber Command+USAF/SAC (whose Reflex Action began in UK 8/1/58, c.66 B-47E on Alert TDY/Bombs on Board: deconfliction was an evident necessity); target
integrated wef 1/7/58: discussion had shown that "every BC target was also on SAC's list". P.275. P274 has 106 BC targets (MBF+SMF Thor), 69 cities, 17 Sov. bomber and 20 Sov Air Defence bases. They have not been published in detail.

Last of 104 RAF Valiant delivered 27/8/57. Moore/Illusion, P.112 has Blue Danube Mk.3 CA Release, 7/57; all 24 to RAF by 3/58(Walker/RUSI Jnl.10/11,Note 3). So all bomber Valiants were HE to c.3/58. US Bombs were deployed in BC wef 1/10/58. So:

- BC targets integrated with SAC (wef 1/4/61: USAF/USN/RAF SIOP):
138 Sqd/Wittering: 8: by 3/58-(Blue Danube, 8/60; Red Beard -) 25/6/61
49 Sqd/Wittering: 8: 21/10/58-(BD, 8/60; RB-) 25/6/61
7 Sqd/Wittering: 8 RB, 1/9/60-30/9/62
148/207 Sqdns./Marham: sharing 8 BD: by 3/58-30/6/58

148 Sqdn/Marham: 8 Mk.5, (by 31/12/58)*-12/7/61
207 Sqdn/Marham: 8 Mk.5, (by 31/12/58)*-31/12/59
7 Sqdn/Honington: 8 Mk.5, 1/10/58-7/60
(If Wynn is correct on Mk.15/39 {yield 3.4/3.8Mt!): 90 Sqdn/Honington: 12/58-30/6/61).
(*: I.Clark,Nuclear Diplomacy & the Special Relationship,Clarendon,1994,P.146 has Marham "stocked" with Mk.5 "by 1/1/59".)

Saceur's Tactical Bomber Force Canberra B.6/Mk.7 became Valiant. His Scheduled Strike Program has not been published in detail, but we might now term it as SEADS:
207 Sqd/Marham: 1/1/60-12/7/61: 8 Mk.5; 13/7/61-31/3/63: 8x2Mk.28; 1/4/63 -9/12/64: 8x2 B-43
49 Sqd/Marham: 13/7/61-31/3/63: 8x2 Mk.28; 1/4/63 -9/12/64: 8x2 B-43
148 Sqd/Marham: 13/7/61-31/3/63: 8x2 Mk.28; 1/4/63 -9/12/64: 8x2 B-43.
(214 Sqdn/Marham was dual-tasked to 30/6/61, refuelling "pioneer" which "occupied the major portion of Sqdn. effort", 12/57-11/59 Wynn,P.165. It had access to 8 Mk.5s, 1/10/58-30/6/61; then in TBF solely K).

[Hangarshuffle]

Supermac commissioned Polaris ICBM from HM Submarines, and everybody probably thought it was the best thing he ever thought of, especially after watching Dr Strangelove... its still a fantastic film, and must have killed off any chance of the RAF ever hanging on to nuclear weapons, the more people saw it and subsequently got into politics.

[Pontius Navigator]

Hangarshmuffle, please remind us when Dr Strangeglove was released, when the V-Force disbanded, the RAF relinquished nuclear weapons, and for good measure, Hunt for the Red October just so we have the chronoly right.

[ricardian]

Chugalug:

In my time the bomber Canberra crews of 45 Sqn did Japan and NZ, the Philippines to the East and (thanks to a complete exchange ferry programme) Wroughton and Lyneham to the West. We left Africa to the Cyprus squadrons. In my tour I landed my Canberra at 32 different airfields.

Our parish was the SEATO area, in which we doubtless pinched some of your trade, climbing out towards Brunei or Chiang Mai on a Sunday morning with a VIP or an AOG spare part.

… except (returning to the thread) we had a nuclear weapon. The armourers would wheel it out and we would read check-lists over it, as we might have recited good wishes on a visit to a sick uncle.

Here again the word bizarre came to mind, if we thought about the thing at all. Clearly there was no use for it in SEATO, where we teamed with the Hunter squadron (20 Sqn with FGA9s) to practice conventional interdiction and close air support.

Noone told us why we had the thing. We did no relevant target study. Clearly it was sort–of aimed at China, but China has always been very, very big, while 45 Sqn had eight aircraft on a good day. Best not to think about it.

We did practice the LABS procedure, by which we would have tossed the thing before hurrying away. That was a very precise manoeuvre which others got fatally wrong from time to time. It was lovely to feel completely in control, doing low-level aerobatics on instruments at night and scoring well on the bomb target to boot.
USAF and LABS (with video) (https://www.warhistoryonline.com/whotube-2/the_idiots_loop-x.html). But "knots per hour" !!

[Union Jack]

Hangarshmuffle, please remind us when Dr Strangeglove was released, when the V-Force disbanded, the RAF relinquished nuclear weapons, and for good measure, Hunt for the Red October just so we have the chronoly right. - PN

Not to mention the spelling..... := Sorry,PN - couldn't resist, and after all Supermac needed a reasonable leadtime after the Nassau Agreement, which preceded the film, and all before RESO's first patrol in June 68!:)

Jack

[Pontius Navigator]

UJ, mini keyboard. In the absence of HS' s popular chronology, how about:
1962 Nassau
1964 Film
1968 SSBNs
1984 V-Force
1998 Tornado

On personalities like General Jack Ripper, the RAF had no personal reliability programme. Individuals were simply picked to do the job. Those that didn't come up to scratch were reassigned. There were at least two station commanders however that broke under the pressure. I am told these were in 1Gp and that 3Gp did not suffer that way.

Was the pressure the simple one of the nuclear weapons or the pressure brought on from the need to maintain QRA at 15 minutes, generate the main force with the first aircraft ready within 2 hrs and most within 4-5 hrs, all the time being watched by the C in C?

[recceguy]

Sad to see that the French Armée de l'air still has a solid airborne component, manned by Rafale and Mirage 2000N, with the ASMP missile (Mach 3, 100 km range, 100 m terminal accuracy... for 300 kT) under total national control (as the manufacture of it)

[pr00ne]

recceguy,


Excellent, if you want to deter Belgium...

[Pontius Navigator]

recceguy,


Excellent, if you want to deter Belgium...
Interesting point of view. Why Belgium? Surely they would wish to deter another nuclear power, say UK or Germany (USAFE) or even Russia.

[recceguy]

Excellent, if you want to deter Belgium...

It's 100 times better than nothing, which is the subject of this thread.

[pr00ne]

recceguy,

Is it? Really?

How

[Pontius Navigator]

Proone, why are you denigrating the French?

I am just curious when provocative but unsupported statements are made.

[pr00ne]

I'm not denigrating the French as such, I just do not see the point in this day and age in short range tactical nuclear weapons.

Imagine if the UK DID have such an ability still, and say two GR4 squadrons had some sort of WE177 replacement, powered or unpowered, and were dedicated as such.

What difference would that make to the current UK or RAF capability other than making a number of aircraft unavailable for their current tasking?

[Pontius Navigator]

prOOne, thank you. The answer was mooted recently, in recently released documents but I can't recall where, that the French represented a wild card in the US/UK v USSR scenario and I suspect that that idea persists in today's reality too.

However I cannot envisage even small tactical first use and I am not convinced that Russia would either.

Of course the had, have?, a triad of systems.

[Union Jack]

UJ, mini keyboard. - PN

At least not mini bar:ok:

Individuals were simply picked to do the job. - PN

Not quite the same I appreciate, but I believe that certain command-qualified officers who might potentially have been earmarked for SSBN service were allowed to express a preference for SSN service for personal reasons, and at least one resigned rather than take up such an appointment.

Jack

[recceguy]

The French represented a wild card in the US/UK scenario vs USSR

For sure they were, and by definition, being an independant nuclear force, to the contrary of the one subject of that thread.

a short-range, tactcal nuclear force

Totally wrong. Get your figures right, and come back to the discussion.

[pr00ne]

recceguy,

Who are you talking to?

[recceguy]

pr00ne :

You chose to be sarcastic ( " to deter Belgium" ) so you got answers with facts. So to be perfectly clear, I repeat once again that RAF no longer have a nuclear component, either old Tornados or antic V-bombers only to be discussed for history like Aden, Tengah and Masirah - and that the French still have squadrons on Mirage 2000N and Rafale with ASMP missiles, the latest couple aircraft/missile having been implemented a couple of years ago.
Now if you call 60 missiles with 500 km range at high altitude, Mach 3, 10 m accuracy at the end with 300 kT (Hiroshima x 20) a "small tactical force" ... it's up to you and nobody will follow you.
And those aircraft can operate from the French nuclear carrier...

[pr00ne]

I do call it a small force, and I neither want nor expect anyone to "follow me"
Furthermore I call it an irrelevant and pointless waste of money and resources, and I am fully aware of the historic nature of the discussion being one who sat in a guarded compound at Bruggen awaiting the call to irradiate and lay waste a SAM site in East Germany in response to some invasion of the IGB. That too I thought equally irrelevant and pointless...