Could the RAF resume the nuclear deterrent as a cheaper alternative to Trident?

[ricardian]

Report discovered on the web (https://defenceoftherealm.wordpress.com/2015/08/08/could-the-raf-resume-the-nuclear-deterrent-as-a-cheaper-alternative-to-trident/)

Cue thunderous outrage from red-cheeked retired admirals, etc

[Jimlad1]

Its been done to death over the last few years. Fundamentally the UK is not ideally suited for sustaining a credible airborne deterrent in the current threat environment.

We'd need lots more aircraft, lots more dispersal airfields, a whole new nuclear device to drop, a significant expansion in the RAF to ensure that sufficient aircrew are available to crew the squadrons on the nuclear strike role and also meet our day to day commitments, and also a wider uplift in manning and real estate.

Or we could just build 4 submarines, crack on with it like we've been doing for 47 years and be done with it...

(I know RELENTLESS is a bit more than 4 SSBN but its still a damn sight less than V Force Redux).

[Genstabler]

As the article points out the major shortcomings of an airborne nuclear deterrent and supports the retention of a submarine deterrent, I can't see why the red cheeked retired admirals would be outraged in the slightest.

[tartare]

My lad just asked an interesting question.
"Dad - when would a modern air force use a parachute retarded free fall nuclear weapon?"
Prompted by him watching Hiroshima docos.
Bloody good question thought I.
When you've got ICBMs - what do you use your WE-whatever to whack?
Secondary targets?
Do the ICBMs knock out the cities etc. and then the nuclear bombers go in and clean anything else up?
Or have I got the order of battle wrong - bombers first to nuke a few smaller, lesser targets, and then ICBMs only used when it's an all out nuclear exchange?

[Melchett01]

An interesting question. I know during the Cold War there were battlefield nuclear weapons to achieve tactical effect, but in this day and age, given current political thinking and sensibilities can there ever be such a thing as a tactical nuke?

[glad rag]

but in this day and age, given current political thinking and sensibilities can there ever be such a thing as a tactical nuke?

Ask the ruskies....[echoes of the past?]..

Russia destroys tonnes of foreign food imports - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-33816360)


..change in doctrine..

Insight - Russia's nuclear strategy raises concerns in NATO | Reuters (http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/02/04/uk-ukraine-crisis-russia-nuclear-insight-idUKKBN0L825A20150204)

[John Farley]

Genstabler

I agree with you.

The article seems very balanced to me and I would have thought please the Navy without in any way giving the RAF any cause for complaint.

[Courtney Mil]

The red cheeked admirals will be outraged because that is their natural position whenever the topic of taking anything away from them is even mentioned, especially to give it to the RAF. I'm sure they will also receive the expert counsel of the the Big Bearded Bonkers Bloke who will point out that this is clearly yet another RAF conspiracy against the RN. :E

That aside, I thought the article was quite well balanced and shows that it really comes down to what the UK wants to achieve and what it is willing to spend. And, yes, I fully agree this would involve massive spending to prepare the RAF for this role - although why do I suspect the Government might just try to scab on a huge new role within existing resources?

A couple of thoughts occur. And I'm deliberately not revisiting the usual arguments, which Jimlad refers to.

First, there are systems "out there" that could be options. The French have a system that could, politics permitting, suit the need. And they don't seem to be too concerned about Germany being in the way - they are in the same nuclear alliance, after all. The system is tested and supported, and there are improvements in the pipeline. A further plus is the financial benefit of sharing an almost common system and, possibly, basing etc.

Second, I can't help thinking of numbers at readiness. Is it enough to have standing QRA(N) if the rest of the arsenal is too second line? That is where a significant uplift of resources becomes an issue.

Third, (I'm being brief here) what are the real domestic and US politics involved? I think we can all guess at the obvious issues, but the secret squirrel stuff would be massive.

At the end of the day, even with proper resourcing, such a move could save billions. On the other hand, does Dave want to give up his diminishing status on the World Stage and become even more like some other nations as NATO bit players?

Finally, will it happen? Er, probably not. Could it be made to work? With the right will, yes. Is it a good idea? Again, depends what the nation wants (to have and to pay for). I'm sure the Navy will have much better ideas.

[AnglianAV8R]

So, a couple of squadrons for the strategic strike and recce role perhaps? certainly not that F35 cash sink hole though. I'm thinking maybe a two seat adaption of the tranche 1 Typhoon. Yep, that'll do nicely and surely be a cheaper and more flexible resource than four boats. So, we just get BWoS to turn out a quick adaption, which ought to be simple and cost effective. :E

[Courtney Mil]

Two seat Typhoon would not be a good option, sadly. Massive architecture redesign and the fuel penalty of the second seat is prohibitive.

[Fareastdriver]

Where are you going to base your nuclear deterrent? Wherever you choose the NIMBY's will be out in force and their particular MP will be watching.

[Jimlad1]

"At the end of the day, even with proper resourcing, such a move could save billions. On the other hand, does Dave want to give up his diminishing status on the World Stage and become even more like some other nations as NATO bit players? "

I'm confused. How does having to massively expand the RAF manpower totals, real estate and support network, buy lots of additional airframes to ensure sufficient numbers to deliver a nuclear strike mission, and develop an entirely new warhead and delivery system save us billions of pounds over the existing system please?

Just a reminder that in its heyday the V-Force required some 150 bombers deployed to 30 plus airfields in time of crisis. We don't have that kind of infrastructure anymore, and would need to roughly double the RAF fast jet force to get similar front line numbers in service.

[glad rag]

More to the point the RAF neither has the technical expertise or retained the corporate knowledge to operate or maintain these on aircraft systems...

[AnglianAV8R]

Here's a novel concept..... How about taking a couple of squadrons worth of Tornado airframes, remove wings, engines and avionics. Then rebuild around a new fuel efficient pair of turbofans and new carbon fibre wings together with conformal fuel tanks. BWoS have good experience of that sort of thing :E

[mike rondot]

Courtney,

Why would you want a two-seat airplane to do the job?
This wonderful single-seat machine did it very well for a number of years and carried a very big crowd-pleaserhttp://i1188.photobucket.com/albums/z409/5dilly/XX745CU20SQDRnwy011178ETUR.jpgoriginal_zps2hwdq0cy.jpeg (http://s1188.photobucket.com/user/5dilly/media/XX745CU20SQDRnwy011178ETUR.jpgoriginal_zps2hwdq0cy.jpeg.html )…

[NutLoose]

Ahhhhh the late Wing Commander Wharmby's mount?.. Or was it CA?



Fast, agile and accurate, a bloodhound is it not? ;)

[NutLoose]

Could the RAF resume the nuclear deterrent as a cheaper alternative to Trident?
An interesting question. I know during the Cold War there were battlefield nuclear weapons to achieve tactical effect, but in this day and age, given current political thinking and sensibilities can there ever be such a thing as a tactical nuke?

I think Chernobyl proved that a little radiation goes a heck of a long way and a few so called tactical nukes would soon render Europe uninhabitable.

[Courtney Mil]

Mike Rondot, it wasn't me that said they would want a two-seat jet, my remarks about two-seat Typhoon was a reply. I would see the single seat Jag replacement doing it just fine. Jag did it just fine, so why not? Yep! With you there. :ok:

Jimlad, I have no idea, I haven't done a full appraisal or a costing exercise. Nor could I. I was neither supporting nor dismissing the idea, simply remarking that the savings could be redistributed and I happen to THINK that there would still be a lot of change left over. As an afterthought, it might also solve the problem of where to put the bombs after the UK is kicked out of Scotland.

Fareastdriver, not sure who the "you" is in your post, but whomsoever that is will have the same problem no matter what the future deterrent might be.

Nutty, indeed it does, although there a big difference between the results of an actual nuclear bang and a conventional explosion in the middle of a big pile nuclear material. I was going to make the point earlier that having a couple of tactical nukes in the middle of your big cities is probably enough and maybe you don't need the full apocalypse device to make your point.

[NutLoose]

Trouble is with a tactical nuke is it is a nuke and you then get into the my bomb is bigger than yours as it ramps up.
One doubts that using a tactical nuke to stem the attack would result in the other side responding likewise with a proportional response.

[Cows getting bigger]

Sorry, but far better keeping the capability out of sight in one of the RN's finest. You can't exactly have a nuclear bomber pop-up on the beach without significant warning.

[Heathrow Harry]

Correct Nutloose

IIRC EVERY simulated war game in Europe in Warsaw Pact days showed that after first use of a Tactical N Weapon you had 24-48 hours before the whole shebang of ICBM's etc broke loose

Aircarft are a lot easier to intercept than an ICBM- you just can't be sure a small number of RAF N bombers would get through any more

[LOMCEVAK]

Hi Mike (Rondot),

Great picture of the dear old Jag but I did have a wry smile at the stores configuration depicted; precisely where does the bomb go?!

Best regards

L

[NutLoose]

You could always chuck the outboard pylons on and fit them on that :)

[Jayand]

If they were serious about reducing the cost whilst maintaining a credible nuclear force then the answer is nuclear capable TLAM's on the Astute class and not sticking them on a fast jet base somewhere.
I would actually like to see this option and get rid of the Trident replacement idea completely.

[Jimlad1]

"Jimlad, I have no idea, I haven't done a full appraisal or a costing exercise. Nor could I. I was neither supporting nor dismissing the idea, simply remarking that the savings could be redistributed and I happen to THINK that there would still be a lot of change left over. As an afterthought, it might also solve the problem of where to put the bombs after the UK is kicked out of Scotla"

Courtney - if you dig around a little you'll find the HMG paper on this and nuclearising TLAM from a few years ago. The basic research done showed very quickly that going down either the RAF airborne deterrent, or the TLAM on an SSN route was vastly more expensive and wouldnt have the same guarantee of success as the SSBN/ICBM combination. Believe me when I say its been looked at, the sums have been done, and each time Trident emerges as the value for money option no matter how you look at it.

As for TLAM - again, not a runner because there is no nuclear TLAM in service, we'd have to pay full development and manufacture costs as the USN doesnt want it anymore, and that gets horribly expensive. Thats before you get into the issue of deterrence policy and how you'd cope in a crisis with lots of SSN going to sea and how this may actually escalate matters. Again looked at regularly and regularly proven to be a non runner in terms of costs.

[PhilipG]

I am interested in why if a submarine based ICBM is the only really guaranteed deterrent vehicle, that the French have both missile submarines and an airborne nuclear strike capability. Which country has missed a trick?

[mike rondot]

Hi Lomcevak

The WE177 went on the centreline pylon, where that 1200lt fuel tank is. The three-tank fit was very unusual and rarely fitted. It was shown many times that the Jaguar used most of the fuel in the tank to carry it, especially if the ODM figures were used for cruise.

[NutLoose]

Yup, on a SWDERU mounted to the pylon.

[Courtney Mil]

Courtney - if you dig around a little you'll find the HMG paper on this and nuclearising TLAM from a few years ago. The basic research done showed very quickly that going down either the RAF airborne deterrent, or the TLAM on an SSN route was vastly more expensive and wouldnt have the same guarantee of success as the SSBN/ICBM combination. Believe me when I say its been looked at, the sums have been done, and each time Trident emerges as the value for money option no matter how you look at it.


Yep, thank you for all that. If you read my post fully you would see that I carefully stated that I was not getting into the well versed arguments about the whole business of the deterent. I clearly was not advocating the move to aircraft carried deterrent. I never mentioned nuclearising TLAM, I made no mention of success. If I offered any opinion about how aircraft carried deterent might work, I think you will find I mentioned an extant French system - a hypothetical suggestion that occurred to me from reading article. An option that has not been costed.

As I said, even mentioning removing this role from the RN always results in outrage.

To be clear, I expressed opinions on the article posted. My views on the wider UK deterent issue were not expressed.

[Pontius Navigator]

PG, I would guess that an aircraft deterrent would enable a visible show of force that could be both launched and recalled with the submarine as a secure backup and second strike system.

Before the RN deterrent the V-Force could be launched but if it was recalled the entire deterrent would have been shot for between 4 and 6 hours while a smaller proportion of the first launch was recovered, turn round and recocked. The Blue Steel systems might have been down for 3 days or more.

[Jimlad1]

Courtney - I'm not trying to get into an argument here, merely pointing out that you raised some questions about how you thought it would save money and I've directed you as to where you can find answers.

TLAM reference was for another poster.

Its not cheaper, it will never be cheaper and it makes no sense to reinvent a perfectly good wheel in the form of something that we'll spend billions more to do less than we can do now.

[Hangarshuffle]

No. The RAF era has gone and it will never return.

[Courtney Mil]

Hangarshuffle, a predictable and well reasoned statement. And I really don't think you have to worry. It won't happen so sleep tight.

It's just a discussion about an an interesting article.

[Danny42C]

Cows Getting Bigger (#20) has the answer, IMHO.

The only people who know where the Trident sub is "on station" at any one time are in the sub - and they're not talking !

You can't retaliate against something when you don't know where it is. Any other delivery system can be pin-pointed, on the ground or in the air.

Admittedly, Trident has really only one function: MAD. But that suffices to protect us from nuclear blackmail. You can have as many other nuclear ideas as you can afford after that.

Perhaps I really am going gaga ? :*

D.

[ORAC]

Everything to do with nuclear weapons - design, engineering, support, maintenance, retirement, manpower - is frighteningly expensive. When it came with its own pot of money there was a certain attraction in owning it, now it has to be paid from the same money box the costs involved impinge upon all other programmes.

The RAF is en-route since 1991 to shrink from 30 FJ squadrons to 6, with concomitant manpower; the RN has in the same period seen the FFG/DDG fleet shrink from around 50 to 20 and the attack sub fleet from 25 to 7 - now manning and equipping the carriers will put even more strain on the rest of the fleet as the inevitable cost overruns occur.

I think the Trident replacement is becoming a poison chalice the RAF is more than happy for the RN to remain responsible for - and the RN increasingly unhappy.

[malcrf]

New build Buccaneers with EJ200s and modern avionics would make a fine medium range bomber....................

[Darvan]

Malcrf. What was wrong with the Blue Parrot and GPIC? :)

[Pontius Navigator]

Immediately before the RN assumed the deterrent role, the V-Force had about 9 Vulcan and two Victor sqns with 11 ac on QRA. The SSBN brought 16 weapons to the party and the V Force reduced to about 7 or 8 sqns, ie follow on force of 50 or so weapons.

The Vanguard class can probably field a similar number of MIRV on its own.

The number of target sets will not have changed significantly.

For an aircraft based system you would need to accept a reversion to a similar Leningrad/Moscow system and need 11-12 QRA as defences would have improved in step as well. A further 40 aircraft would be needed to match the Vanguard follow on numbers

[NutLoose]

Admittedly, Trident has really only one function: MAD. But that suffices to protect us from nuclear blackmail. You can have as many other nuclear ideas as you can afford after that.


Agreed, but we need to maintain that capability, no matter how much the wicked witch of the north and her party berate it.
The Ukraine shows what can happen if you give up your capability, no way would Russia have ever marched into the Ukraine had it remained, but they gambled that we the west wouldn't back up our promises with conventional forces, and sadly we proved them right.
All that ensured was that no Country with capability will ever renounce their nuclear weapons again.

[Tourist]

I couple of years ago I heard a well made program on Radio 4 all about this issue. They were interviewing various senior officers and a whole bunch of cross party politicians who were on the committee that decided to go for the SSBNs alone. Interestingly, and surprisingly to me, they said the numbers were very clear that the SSBN option was the cheaper and more effective solution, even leaving aside the second strike issues with land based options. I can't remember the name of the program, sorry, but it was very enlightening.

Exactly the points being discussed here were brought up and the reason explained.

[Jayand]

How can fitting nuclear warheads on TLAMS onto boats already capable of firing TLAMS be more expensive than designing, developing, building, testing etc of a brand new SSBN boat and missile system?
Just build four or more extra Astute class subs and use them exclusively for Nuclear patrols, how difficult can it be?
Just because the yanks have got rid doesn't mean we couldn't buy the system.

[Tourist]

Not all nukes are equal Javand.

The nuke that fits on TLAM is not the same as the nukes on the SSBNs, and neither is the probability of getting to the target.

In the same way, not all boats are the same. V boats are designed to silently bimble around submerged for months on end without being seen or heard. Astute, not so much....

[Pontius Navigator]

Remember too that for 30 years after the RN took over the deterrent, ie the WAR aspect, RN and RAF fielded a considerable follow on force for tactical use and for the first 12 years Vulcans for both tactical and strategic targets.

What we are talking of now is an absolute minimum arsenal which obviously must be as secure and invulnerable as possible.

[Jayand]

Tourist, of course they're not as capable. We as a small nation need to decide what we want and how much we're willing to pay, I personnally don't think we need an SSBN trident type replacement system.
TLAM N on six or so Astute boats would be plenty enough for me.

[k3k3]

Another fly in the ointment if you equip some TLAMs with a nuclear warhead is nobody knows what you have just launched, it may be conventional or it may be nuclear. Your enemy may then launch a nuclear strike while the missile is in flight in retaliation to a supposed nuclear attack when in fact it is just a conventional attack.

[Fluffy Bunny]

The other problem with TLAM is we don't have any warheads to go on them. The UK has always designed and maintained it's own.
Trident may share it's technology and "blunt end" with it's US brethren, but the bit at the pointy end is designed and built at that place in Berkshire.
We can't convert and fit the tactical warheads either. They were decommissioned several years ago after the RAF had finished with them.

[Jayand]

I'm struggling to imagine a scenario where we would be attacking a nuclear armed power with conventional weapons.

[k3k3]

Why did BFG exist then? If the Warsaw Pact had attacked should we have planned to annihilate Moscow as soon as the first tank flattened the border fence?

[malcrf]

Malcrf. What was wrong with the Blue Parrot and GPIC?Absolutely nothing, just thought a bit of a nod to technology advances wouldn't go completely amiss.............

I must admit I don't get why the need to keep designing new platforms when most of the modern changes seem to be what you stick in them, so I don't understand why we don't just keep refining the platforms whilst changing what we stick in them.

So new-build Victors and Buccaneers capable of launching long-range nuclear cruise missiles seems perfectly viable to me, and whilst we're at it why not new build Nimrods for our MPA?!!

:ugh:

[Jimlad1]

"How can fitting nuclear warheads on TLAMS onto boats already capable of firing TLAMS be more expensive than designing, developing, building, testing etc of a brand new SSBN boat and missile system?"

Many reasons! Firstly its not an existing weapon system, it'd be an entirely new system. We'd have to design and field from scratch the warhead, the missile system, the support network and so on. Thats assuming the US sells us TLAM if they knew we'd stick a nuclear warhead on it, and that we can do so under counterproliferation treaties.

I'm trying hard not to sound patronising or one track record here, but it really isn't cheaper. I know it comes up a lot, but I can assure you that vast amounts of research has been done on this over many years, and they always reach the same conclusion. To deliver the effect we want at a minimal cost, the SSBN is the only answer that is credible.

Nuclear TLAM is great if you want to give your opponent several hours advance warning of a strike and also mean you can't use any form of cruise missile against them for other purposes without passing the escalation threshold.

Additionally, one minor but critical point to consider. SSBNs are designed to sit there silently and wait for orders to be received. The most critical and vital part of a deterrent isn't arguably the warheads, its the Command and Control and Communications element to ensure that if the PM requests a nuclear strike, CDS can order one (a critical distinction). The C3 package is exceptionally complex, requires a lot of kit and isn't something you could easily change without incurring a lot of expensive rebuilding (if you do some googling you can fairly easily see some of the sites we require to this day to keep the nuclear firing chain in place). You also need to refit the submarines to carry the comms suite to do this - this is not as simple as putting some radios into a hull, and would probably require an entirely new design to be built.

In other words you're building a new design weapon, a new design warhead, a new design submarine, a new design C3I battle management system and a lot of other stuff to, and in return you reduce your tactical options against most opponents and spend a lot more money to do less than you could do before. Why does this make sense?

[engineer(retard)]

Absolutely nothing, just thought a bit of a nod to technology advances wouldn't go completely amiss.............

GPIC was the nod to technology

[malcrf]

The other problem with TLAM is we don't have any warheads to go on them. The UK has always designed and maintained it's own.
Trident may share it's technology and "blunt end" with it's US brethren, but the bit at the pointy end is designed and built at that place in Berkshire.
We can't convert and fit the tactical warheads either. They were decommissioned several years ago after the RAF had finished with them.

This has to be a really long-term solution for us. Given the question-mark over whether our nuclear deterrent is really independent I personally would like to see the service life of our current SSBNs extended whilst we put together our own genuinely independent nuclear deterrent. Long-range nuclear cruise missiles ought to be within our technical capabilities and financial strictures, and launchable from a larger Astute force and some new-build Victors and/Buccaneers...............

[Jimlad1]

"So new-build Victors and Buccaneers capable of launching long-range nuclear cruise missiles seems perfectly viable to me, and whilst we're at it why not new build Nimrods for our MPA?!!"

Because the designs date back to the 1950s using machinery, technology and industrial techniques long obsolete and out of date and no longer available. We'd have to rebuild from scratch a bespoke industrial base to create a design using 1950s kit and then shoehorn in 2010s technology and hope it works.

Nimrod is a classic lesson in why rebuilds from scratch will always go badly badly wrong.

[malcrf]

Nimrod is a classic lesson in why rebuilds from scratch will always go badly badly wrong.

I thought it was grafting precision built new wings on to old hand-crafted variable dimension fuselages that was Nimrod's downfall. Complete new build wouldn't have had that problem.

And, as the P3 re-winging seems to prove, you can build old designs with modern tools and techniques................so if the platform gives you the performance characteristics you need why not stick with it?!

[Not_a_boffin]

I thought it was grafting precision built new wings on to old hand-crafted variable dimension fuselages that was Nimrod's downfall. Complete new build wouldn't have had that problem.


That was one obvious pitfall waiting for someone to fall into it. However, many, more serious issues actually led to the cancellation.

[Jimlad1]

Just because the Victor / Buccaneer was a good bomber in the 1950s doesnt mean that nearly 60 years later it would be any good now.

I'm also curious as to how we'd build a plane designed using 1950s kit, technology and so on when all of this has been replaced by vastly more capable kit and technology. Presumably you'd want the upgraded version in service, so we get to build a 1950s plane and put 2015 technology in it, that it wasnt actually designed to carry or use?

Bluntly, your idea of new build victor / buccanneer is utter madness.

[PTR 175]

I could be adding 2 and 2 and getting 5 anyhow here goes. Several years ago the French tested a warhead in French Polynesia atmospherically in breach of the rules. Everybody was in uproar about this but the UK was surprisingly quiet. Now is it possible that the bucket of sunshine was a joint UK/French job ? The reason I say this is both the French and UK have potentially a similar platform to put this on.

The French have SCALP we have Storm Shadow which I think are the same unit made by MBDA

So if the French warhead tested was for SCALP then it would fit Storm Shadow.

Now allowing for the storage and control issues etc I believe you have a suitable weapon for the RAF.

[Jimlad1]

The French warhead was a french warhead - we weren't that close to the French at the time. Our warheads were tested in the US.

No conspiracy here, and definitely no joint test.

[Not_a_boffin]

I could be adding 2 and 2 and getting 5 anyhow here goes. Several years ago the French tested a warhead in French Polynesia atmospherically in breach of the rules. Everybody was in uproar about this but the UK was surprisingly quiet. Now is it possible that the bucket of sunshine was a joint UK/French job ? The reason I say this is both the French and UK have potentially a similar platform to put this on.



You are.

The tests you refer to are nigh on twenty years ago and were underground, not atmospheric. They were done to generate data prior to French ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and in terms of warhead development, probably track better with the TN75 warhead for their SLBM force.

Their air-delivered buckets of sunshine tend to be on the end of an ASMP-A, which is a rather different weapon to Scalp.

[Pontius Navigator]

Jimlad, our cousins have done exactly that with the B52.

Shoe horning New kit in is not the problem. The problem is adding the balancing weights.

The NBS weighed in at around 1600lbs. I could probably carry the computer and fixing system in my shirt pocket.

[malcrf]

I'm also curious as to how we'd build a plane designed using 1950s kit, technology and so on when all of this has been replaced by vastly more capable kit and technology. Presumably you'd want the upgraded version in service, so we get to build a 1950s plane and put 2015 technology in it, that it wasnt actually designed to carry or use?

Bluntly, your idea of new build victor / buccanneer is utter madness.

So as technology improves, and usually gets smaller and lighter, you don't think we could get this new kit and technology into these sizeable airframes?

And you don't think that such new kit and technology wouldn't significantly improve the capabilities of said airframes?

And you don't think modern materials and manufacturing wouldn't improve said airframes when new built?

Designing a completely new airframe other than when you need bleeding edge performance is what constitutes utter madness!

[malcrf]

Jimlad, our cousins have done exactly that with the B52.

Shoe horning New kit in is not the problem. The problem is adding the balancing weights.

The NBS weighed in at around 1600lbs. I could probably carry the computer and fixing system in my shirt pocket.

Doesn't that mean we could get more kit in? :ooh:

[Lonewolf_50]

If they were serious about reducing the cost whilst maintaining a credible nuclear force then the answer is nuclear capable TLAM's on the Astute class and not sticking them on a fast jet base somewhere.
Cruise missiles can be shot down. Ballistic missiles -- are sort of like a bomb in the terminal phase. You ever try to shoot down a bomb? Even if you have the patriots and THAADs and SM 2/3, the ballistic missile, and its MIRV warheads, are a :mad: of a target. Cruise missiles are comparatively easy, as targets.

[Pontius Navigator]

Malcrf, the Vulcan, with a teeny seen t was able to add two drum tanks to Iranian bay.

Strip out the NBS and ECM and make the bays wet, pod weapons and ECM under the wings like the B58, put an extra tank in the bomb bay and you have a serious amount of extra fuel.

Then replace 4 oil burners with two reheated burners and you would have a much greater unrefuelled endurance.

[Jimlad1]

Now I'm confused - are we calling for the original 1950s design victor and bucanneer airframe to be produced as designed?
Are we calling for 1950s design built using 2015 technology? Are we using the 1950s design but modified to the design as it stood in the 1970s, 1980s or 1990s?
Are we calling for 1950s design, using 2015 technology and incorporating modern advances and thus making it an entirely new design?

Its really easy to say 'build an old plane now as that must be cheaper' right up to the point where you realise that to do so means basically building a new airplane, and then you realise its still cheaper to replace Trident with a new SSBN than it is to go down that route.

[Exnomad]

Do we actually have the capability to build anything like a victor at present.
Airbus only build wings in the UK

[Courtney Mil]

The answer to most of the "could we" "can we" questions is probably "Yes". If there were the will. The real question is "Do we really want to?"

To mind mind, "No". Because there is neither the will nor the need. As the UK is at a position where could build an entire new system it was a good time to raise the issue. It will now be for the Government to cost the options and decide the capability (and its inherent security) that wants to own and to pay for. An expensive ballistic option with a small fleet of submarines and all the support, storage and maintenance issues (especially if Scotland keeps being pissy) or a smaller, less cryptic, airborne option.

I wonder if there will be anything about it in the SDSR. There ought to be. Or will there be an MPs' rebellion that decides they don't want any of it?

[Pontius Navigator]

CM, and of course there is a hidden advantage in a single mission force. They can't be redeployed to a different mission (possibly their secondary role of ASW
) unlike the pressure Harold Wilson came under when he deployed just 4 Vulcans out of area. When he permitted the deployment of two whole sqns that involved a lot of shuffling of plans.

[MAINJAFAD]

The UK has always designed and maintained it's own.
Trident may share it's technology and "blunt end" with it's US brethren, but the bit at the pointy end is designed and built at that place in Berkshire.

Not since the early 1960s have the UK designed and produced a nuclear weapon physics package on their own (the fisson trigger for WE-177 was the last). Yellow Sun Mk 2 was a British copy of the US B-28 design, The warheads for the SSBN's were based on designs used on the US warhead designs, though the WE-177 primary (atom bomb trigger) design was re-engineered for the Polaris warheads as the UK thought the High Explosive used in the US warhead for their missiles was unsafe. Its a good bet that the majority of the bits in the UK Trident re-entry vehicles were made in the USA.

[malcrf]

Malcrf, the Vulcan, with a teeny seen t was able to add two drum tanks to Iranian bay.

Strip out the NBS and ECM and make the bays wet, pod weapons and ECM under the wings like the B58, put an extra tank in the bomb bay and you have a serious amount of extra fuel.

Then replace 4 oil burners with two reheated burners and you would have a much greater unrefuelled endurance.

Pontius Navigator

I do like it, just always found the Victor more aesthetically pleasing than the Vulcan!

[malcrf]

Its really easy to say 'build an old plane now as that must be cheaper' right up to the point where you realise that to do so means basically building a new airplane, and then you realise its still cheaper to replace Trident with a new SSBN than it is to go down that route.

Is there not a balance? Using modern tooling and manufacturing techniques is a no-brainer (and why should it cost more?), and you can presumably substitute modern materials when there is not much impact on development and testing.

Surely the main saving is the development costs for a brand new airframe?

So I'm not sure I agree that it's basically building a "brand new airplane"

[Not_a_boffin]

This reminds me a little of the debate often had about common hull forms for ships. The argument basically goes "build every type of similar ship using the same hullform - it will be oodles cheaper and everything" - even if the hullform in question is a couple of decades old. A variation on the theme is "why not just build "new" Type 23s, instead of spending all that money on a Type 26?"

While ships and aircraft are (obviously) very different, a couple of things have parallels.

1. The external shape of the ship or aircraft is important to performance, but is only one part of the design. Internal weight distribution, component loading, system functions are equally, if not more important.
2. The actual ship or aircraft is manufactured from literally hundreds of thousands of design drawings, detailing components, assembly etc.

What I think Jim is trying to demonstrate (and I agree) is that it's not just a question of picking up a set of drawings (assuming a complete set even exists) and programming them into some super whizzy computer thing that will magically churn them out in the blink of an eye and for the price of a pint. In the interval, many things change, which may not be apparent. I have little or no knowledge of aircraft design regs, but would have expected that there are many changes in what you can and can't do with materials from a design, manufacture and assembly PoV compared to previous practice, say thirty years ago. I would also expect design performance standards to have changed as well. On a ship for example, one of the reasons that T45 and T26 are so much bigger than their predecessors has very little to do with big radars at height and everything to do with regulations on accommodation standards, escape and evacuation routes, fire protection, damaged stability, etc etc.

A long list of changes, against which some may say "good enough for my day, good enough for now". Maybe, maybe not. Accommodation standards don't have a direct parallel with aircraft per se, but safety does - particularly since the decision to forego Crown Immunity. All of those things dictate that every system in a ship or an aircraft must be assessed for safety against current regulations which in many cases means starting from scratch and going down to component level. It is these sorts of design exercise that may not have ever been considered in great detail in previous ships or aircraft and the cause of much angst in the "airworthiness" argument. Just determining which organisation would be the design authority (and whether they would accept that responsibility!) would be a major exercise - look at what VTTST have had to do for XH558 just to fly a constrained envelope for civvy displays.

Just one other aspect is the availability of equivalent components, which is one of the arguments against building a "new" batch of T23 for example - I'd bet good money that one would have to go through the materials list of pretty much every drawing and change the requisition number of the majority of component parts - simply because you can no longer buy them new. That takes a phenomenal amount of design effort and cost as well - and that's before you consider the cost of translating paper-based drawings into contemporary CADAM format that can be used on modern computer systems.

There are many other examples, but conscious I've written an essay, I'll leave it there and hope it demonstrates why a new-build V-bomber is not easy or cheap. What should be absolutely clear is that it ain't survivable and it's unlikely to be certain, unless you build either an LO version (even more different design requirements) or hundreds of them (costly to build and man). For a deterrent survivability and certainty are essential for credibility.

[malcrf]

So, in a nutshell, designing a new medium or long range bomber from scratch is as cheap as new building an existing design?

So we may as well start from scratch even when the old design gave acceptable performance characteristics?

So the Americans with the B52s and the Russians with their Bears have got it all wrong? And haven't the Russians just committed to new build Blackjacks?

Jeez I've completely missed the point!

[malcrf]

Not_a_boffin (http://www.pprune.org/members/137776-not_a_boffin)

I actually don't completely disagree, and I do accept that it is far from easy or cheap, but I must admit I don't completely get the desire for new designs when the new airframe doesn't seem to add a lot over existing designs......................and I think a lot of people felt that a Buccaneer with the Tonka's kit would have been the better aircraft.

I guess I made the contribution to this debate for two reasons.............a) could we find a cheaper acceptable alternative to Trident given its impact on a very stretched defence budget, so could we put together a launch platform for a long-range air launched cruise missile for example?, and b) with reference to Typhoon (another topic I know), I don't get why we already seem to be consigning this plane to the history books when we could be planning on continual refinement of the design over the next twenty or more years.

[Courtney Mil]

I haven't heard the "resurrect TSR2" idea yet.

There were some wonderful old designs that could be re-engineered, but don't you think we could do better today? Or have design, materials engineering and aerodynamics stood still for the past 40 years?

Anyway, we'll have fully operational F-35s in a couple of weeks so we won't need anything else.

EDIT: Malcrf, just seen your post. Yes, the UK could find a cheaper alternative (as you say) and, yes, Typhoon has a long way to go.

[Shackman]

About the only way we could find for the RAF to deliver a nuclear weapon to other places would be:

a. Put a load of nuclear boffins in a room and get them to design a teeny-weeny little bomb that would go in a suitcase, then build a load of these.

b. Give (issue?) them to all the holding aircrew and send them civ-air to wherever the bomb is required and tell them to light the blue touch paper and run (fairly quickly) into wind!

Unfortunately, as I'm sure many of you have seen, there are a few snags to this:

Firstly handbrake house would want the appropriate authority to issue air warrants (and would still try to use alternative travel methods).

Then they would go for the cheapest travel option (Squeezyjet or similar) and refuse to pay for hold baggage - so back to the design team to make it fit in a rucksack!

Take it through 'security' - they probably won't see the bomb (unless you write BOMB on it) but will confiscate the matches for lighting the fuse.

Assuming you get to board the aircraft all the overhead lockers will be full so you will spend the flight with it on your lap or kicking it under the seat in front.

And when you finally arrive you will find you're 70 odd miles from you destination (target), it's midnight and there is no transport.

As for any allowances - ...........

But still. I'm sure it will be cheaper than a few subs with missiles.

[Tourist]

I accept that there will still be a lot of work to re-do an old design, but there would obviously be some savings/lower risks compared to a totally new design.

For example, we KNOW that if you build a new Buccaneer with the same weight and external dimensions, the hook will work for deck landings. (See F35)

We know how it will handle, what its foibles are etc.

We KNOW that we can make engines that will give more power, better reliability and lower fuel consumption.

We KNOW that all the various events like airborne refuelling work without altering the configuration.


etc etc etc.

The airframe will produce no unpleasant surprises.

We also know that there is enough space on board for a vast amount of shiny modern toys and still have a baggage compartment big enough for 8 crates of beer.:ok:

[PhilipG]

Is the debate here not getting down to one that could be transferred to the the car world?

Yes the world beating BMC Mini 850, with transmission in the sump etc was reliable, fun to drive, handled well and was economical on 3 star leaded petrol as well as being easy(ish) to work on.

Take your BMW built Mini, a completely different beast, far closer tolerances in all the manufacturing processes, as well as being a far more capable car all round.

Not sure that we want buckets of sunshine being carried by aircraft designed at the same time as a BMC Mini...

[Tourist]

But which mini would you try to win a rally championship in...?

I know which I would choose, and it is not the fat one.

[malcrf]

But which mini would you try to win a rally championship in...?

I know which I would choose, and it is not the fat one.

Completely agree............not all advances turn out to be improvements! :ooh:

[Not_a_boffin]

Just using this to demonstrate some of the issues, rather than "having a go"...

I accept that there will still be a lot of work to re-do an old design, but there would obviously be some savings/lower risks compared to a totally new design. Maybe, not certain. Depends on stuff below.

For example, we KNOW that if you build a new Buccaneer with the same weight and distribution and external dimensions, the hook will work for deck landings. (See F35 - no argument from me there! )

We know how it will handle, what its foibles are etc. Assuming weight dist is the same and that the FCS is the same

We KNOW that we can make engines that will give more power, better reliability and lower fuel consumption. Definitely, but see below

We KNOW that all the various events like airborne refuelling work without altering the configuration. Assuming FCS behaves the same etc


etc etc etc.

The airframe will produce no unpleasant surprises. Assuming we know that any startling fatigue issues have been permanently dealt with / will not occur later in the FI.

We also know that there is enough space on board for a vast amount of shiny modern toys and still have a baggage compartment big enough for 8 crates of beer.:ok: Massive plus point!

BUT - it will still have an RCS the size of a house relative to an LO cab and therefore be more vulnerable to a range of modern threats, most of the time.

Fixing that would mean changing the airframe (and engine intakes / tailpipes) which may affect controllability and flight envelope.

Would you choose to manufacture a jet milled from solid metal again, with hydraulic FCS. Is it the most cost-effective to build and/or maintain? Is the fatigue design index the same?

Not in anyway knocking the Bucc - can you imagine a Bucc with A6E avionics on UK and US decks in the 80s/90s? Same goes for the Buff - but notice that the yanks aren't trying to build new ones, they're just trying to keep the remaining (reducing) fleet relevant, supportable and survivable, because they know they can't afford a replacement (see B1 and B2 for details).

The Russ are trying to refurbish Blackjacks and Backfires simply because they have no money (and possibly remaining expertise) to do anything else. The "new-build" Blackjack project appears to have gone quietly right since the initial announcement. How much is down to that nice Mr Putin waving his genitalia remains to be seen.

Aircraft-based deterrents might be cheaper, but definitely far from survivable, which ultimately means cheaper but not credible....

[malcrf]

Tourist,

I think you've captured what I've been trying to say..................we know what existing designs offer in terms of flying characteristics, and we know we can a) stuff more shiny new kit in them and b) extract better performance from new engines etc......................if your not looking for bleeding edge performance why take the risk on a blank sheet design?

[malcrf]

I haven't heard the "resurrect TSR2" idea yet.

Don't get me started, TSR2 is my favourite aircraft, but I was (you'll be surprised to hear) trying to be realistic!

[malcrf]

BUT - it will still have an RCS the size of a house relative to an LO cab and therefore be more vulnerable to a range of modern threats, most of the time.'

If the premise is a platform for launching long range cruise missiles, where does the LO come into it?

And to be frank I think we're going to find the F35's a) stealth a bit of a myth and b) lack of range distinctly inhibiting!

Great plane if we want to stealthily bomb the French!

[Jimlad1]

If rebuilding an old aircraft design 60 years later is such a good idea, perhaps you could explain why this has never ever happened in the history of any airforce or commercial airline?

Its not a conspiracy, its because it genuinely does not make any sense. We may have a fond hankering for what looks good or sounds good, but that doesnt mean it makes the slightest bit of operational or financial sense.

Sorry to sound blunt but it really isnt a non starter for a long list of exceptionally good reasons.

[Tourist]

Exactly.

Name an area where the Tornado GR is superior to the Buccaneer.....

[Not_a_boffin]

'

If the premise is a platform for launching long range cruise missiles, where does the LO come into it?

And to be frank I think we're going to find the F35's a) stealth a bit of a myth and b) lack of range distinctly inhibiting!

Great plane if we want to stealthily bomb the French!

I was thinking about the Bucc-a-like in that context and not specifically an F35. Let's not turn this into another Fanboy vs Pte Fraser thread! However, long-range cruise still have a stand-off range from counter action based on the distance from ADIZ from the target and the missile range. Best counter to a long-range A/L missile threat is still kill the bomber, which means long-range radar and interceptors*. Which means you still need to think about your signatures.

Personally I'd rather colonise than bomb France. Oh, wait, we already are......


* Although destroying the launch base is the obviously the absolute best option......

[malcrf]

Perhaps if we had a 2~3,000 Km range cruise missile the LO wouldn't such a factor (evidently the Iranians have one), then maybe we could also submarine and ground-launch them.................and keep the Buccs for bombing ISIS!

[Not_a_boffin]

Perhaps if we had a 2~3,000 Km range cruise missile the LO wouldn't such a factor (evidently the Iranians have one),

Do they really...........fuelled with unobtanium I suppose?

[HambleTinBasher]

A possible high cost item in the way of resurrecting an older type and fitting it with new kit, is that of fastener thread standards. Yes, I know it sounds trivial, but back in the day my tool boxes had Whitworth, Unified, and Metric gear. Imagine the cost of changing all the drawings and related design details to suit present day commercially available materials or parts.

[Pontius Navigator]

Another feature of old versus new is in aerodynamic fashion.

Swept wing replaced straight.

Delta was tried over swept B58, F102/106,A4

Then variable geometry replacing delta. Fitter C, Fencer

Then canard and delta replacing VG, Flanker, Fulcrum

I suppose they are all attempt to minimise the disadvantages or earlier designs.

[KenV]

Then canard and delta replacing VG, Flanker, Fulcrum

With respect, neither the Flanker nor Fulcrum have a delta wing nor canards.

Gripen, Rafale, Typhoon, and J-10 have a delta wing with canard configuration. Su-35 has canards, but no delta wing.

[Willard Whyte]

Perhaps if we had a 2~3,000 Km range cruise missile the LO wouldn't such a factor (evidently the Iranians have one),

Do they really...........fuelled with unobtanium I suppose?

Well, they are developing Meshkat, and even if they struggled during sanctions that may accelerate now they are being lifted 'All' they have to do is copy the dozen ~2,500 km range Kh-55s they got from Ukraine.

Earlier this year Iran revealed a "2,000 km" ground launched cruise missile named Soumar.

Nuclear Threat Initiative: Iran (http://www.nti.org/country-profiles/iran/delivery-systems/)

[Willard Whyte]

Another feature of old versus new is in aerodynamic fashion...

...I suppose they are all attempt to minimise the disadvantages or earlier designs.

Not really. Aerodynamics were pretty much 'nailed' by the mid 40s. All that has happened is that advancing materials and computing technology have allowed for ever more ideal solutions.

[Courtney Mil]

Great plane if we want to stealthily bomb the French!

Erm, do you mind if you don't?

[PhilipG]

Thinking of Courtney's friends the French, how many aircraft do they have on nuclear alert at any one time? Both actually ready to go in minutes and dedicated to the task?

Thinking that this resource, to deliver a supersonic cruise missile with a nuclear tip is above and beyond the MAD solution guaranteed by the submarines of the MN.

Might give a very low baseline for what sort of resources, delivery aircraft, tankers, etc that would be needed, if it was thought to an appropriate route to follow, that personally I don't see, if the RAF was to take over the role.

[Not_a_boffin]

Well, they are developing Meshkat, and even if they struggled during sanctions that may accelerate now they are being lifted 'All' they have to do is copy the dozen ~2,500 km range Kh-55s they got from Ukraine.

Earlier this year Iran revealed a "2,000 km" ground launched cruise missile named Soumar.

Nuclear Threat Initiative: Iran (http://www.nti.org/country-profiles/iran/delivery-systems/)

So assuming they've managed to be able to mass-produce the trick turbofan that is the key to it and assuming they can access GLONASS or equivalent for targeting they can launch from say 1000km stand-off. Bunch of LR interceptors (back to Tonka F3 and/or F14+AIM54) please and weapons free on the bombers.

More to the point, 2000+km at 400kts gives you the best part of three hours flight time to either intercept the inbounds (not easy@300ft but do-able) and more importantly relocate the leadership (those that you really want to deter).

Deterrence is about certainty, the certainty that you can't stop a significant proportion of what will be coming your way (personally) if you don't behave yourself. For a variety of reasons, a cruise-based deterrent can never give you that at an affordable scale.

[KenV]

If the premise is a platform for launching long range cruise missiles, where does the LO come into it?How "long" is "long range"? A really long range cruise missile is both large and heavy and requires a pretty big airplane to carry it. Would such an aircraft be affordable?

Separately, Tomahawk is nuke capable and fairly long range. And it can be launched by UK's submarines. Submarines armed with cruise missiles are arguably much more survivable than bombers with cruise missiles. So if a long range cruise missile is the best weapon (and there are many arguments why it is not), then a submarine may again be the best launch platform for that weapon. In addition, Type 45 destroyers are reportedly Tomahawk capable. What all this means is that there are already multiple cruise missile launch platforms in the UK inventory. So it would appear that an expensive development program can be avoided.

[andyy]

And Ken, as has already been pointed out, if you launch a Cruise Missile how does the potential adversary know whether its conventional or nuclear armed. What is their response likely to be?

They may assume worst case and go nuclear themselves, even if you have only launched a conventional TLAM.

Not so much deterrence, but certainly MAD.

Not much use as a deterrent weapon.

[malcrf]

Do they really...........fuelled with unobtanium I suppose?

Nuhhh............solar powered!!! :rolleyes:

[malcrf]

The question was Could the RAF resume the nuclear deterrent as a cheaper alternative to Trident? 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!

[malcrf]

Posted by Courtney Mil (http://www.pprune.org/members/375756-courtney-mil) Quote:
Originally Posted by Malcrf
Great plane if we want to stealthily bomb the French!

Erm, do you mind if you don't? 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!

[Not_a_boffin]

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!

Actually, the question turns not on whether it is "better" than an SLBM, but whether it can be considered anything like "equivalent".

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.....

[KenV]

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. It seems to me that "cheaper" can be defined many ways. It would certainly by MUCH cheaper financially to abandon a nuclear deterrent altogether. But is this financial benefit worth the cost in national security? I would think not. Similarly, is the financial benefit of a cruise missile based nuclear deterrent worth the cost in national security and international stability? Cruise missiles have been shown to be (generally) inherently destabilizing.

[malcrf]

It's only a limited to a question of cost if you compare like with like.....

Going to have to completely disagree with you there. Cheaper is cheaper regardless of any comparisons..................whether cheaper is good enough is still up for question.

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..............................

[Roadster280]

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.

[Jimlad1]

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/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/27378/DefenceWhitePaper2006_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/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/212745/20130716_Trident_Alternatives_Study.pdf

[Courtney Mil]

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.

[Lonewolf_50]

Again, the exam question here was COULD not SHOULD. COULD unfortunately has to account for the risk of the capability being compromised, or not able to reach the target for X reason, and thus trips lightly into SHOULD before any of us could say "Boo."

[Roadster280]

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/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/27378/DefenceWhitePaper2006_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/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/212745/20130716_Trident_Alternatives_Study.pdf

Thank you Jim, good reading. Thank Christ I live in the US :)

[Courtney Mil]

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.

[Courtney Mil]

LoneWolf,

I agree 100%. I was just establishing the exam question, not supporting the posit.

[Roadster280]

...government paper from Blair and his mates in 2006.

...

Way to much political spin in there to be convincing.

Those two lines couldn't possibly be connected, could they?

[Jimlad1]

"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. :E

[Courtney Mil]

Roadster,

I see it now. Thank you. :ok:



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. :cool:

[Whenurhappy]

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.

[ORAC]

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. they have done something. About £1B has been spent since the paper in various lead-in design and pre-production contracts. You can find details if you google it - they just haven't made a song and dance about it.

e.g.........


Defence secretary publishes update on progress with Trident replacement | Nuclear Information Service (http://nuclearinfo.org/article/future-submarines/defence-secretary-publishes-update-progress-trident-replacement)

See pages 19-21....

http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06526/SN06526.pdf

[Not_a_boffin]

NAB,

I would hope we only fire nukes at SPECIFIED targets.

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.

https://flavorwire.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/bomb.jpg

[Pontius Navigator]

they have done something. About £1B has been spent since

An initial quick scan, I read £18, thought that's about right.

[Pontius Navigator]

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.

[Willard Whyte]

So assuming they've managed to be able to mass-produce the trick turbofan that is the key to it and assuming they can access GLONASS or equivalent for targeting they can launch from say 1000km stand-off. Bunch of LR interceptors (back to Tonka F3 and/or F14+AIM54) please and weapons free on the bombers.

More to the point, 2000+km at 400kts gives you the best part of three hours flight time to either intercept the inbounds (not easy@300ft but do-able) and more importantly relocate the leadership (those that you really want to deter).

Deterrence is about certainty, the certainty that you can't stop a significant proportion of what will be coming your way (personally) if you don't behave yourself. For a variety of reasons, a cruise-based deterrent can never give you that at an affordable scale.

My dear chap, nowhere did I suggest that a cruise missile is an effective deterrent. Indeed I don't believe it is, due to its 'interceptibility'.

I was merely replying to the doubt, seemingly expressed, that they could build & field one.

The fact that they can, or is something that they are working towards, is something that should be taken note of. I would be unsurprised if Russias hands aren't fiddling away, moving things along; the fact that such a weapon would pose something of a threat to them is nothing compared with the consternation it would cause to the West.

[Pontius Navigator]

A problem with the ultimate deterrent is the sub-global strike.

Unfriendly nation nukes friendly base. What do you do?

[langleybaston]

Exactly.

Name an area where the Tornado GR is superior to the Buccaneer.....

Oil consumption perhaps?

[ORAC]

Current existence and manufacturers support.

Who, exactly, would you suggest is willing to ramp up and produce a "cheap" Buccaneer with practically zero profit margin, no R&D spin-off and no export sales?

BWoS wouldn't touch it - perhaps there are a few OAPs who worked at Blackburn still alive and compos mentis? Build a factory, train a staff, build 3-4 sqns of cheap aircraft - then shut it all down again - deep joy........

[malcrf]

Current existence and manufacturers support.

Who, exactly, would you suggest is willing to ramp up and produce a "cheap" Buccaneer with practically zero profit margin, no R&D spin-off and no export sales?

BWoS wouldn't touch it - perhaps there are a few OAPs who worked at Blackburn still alive and compos mentis? Build a factory, train a staff, build 3-4 sqns of cheap aircraft - then shut it all down again - deep joy........

Why would the profit margin be zero? Price minus cost = profit, so if MoD pays a little more than the cost of production then, hey presto, profit.

And if we (as a nation) can make the Tiffy, surely we can build an updated Buccaneer? If not, maybe Saab would remind us of the manufacturing skills required? I don't think there's a law that says they have to be made in Blackburn.....................

[Heathrow Harry]

wecan we can - but the trick is in the word "updated"...

you'll want a glass cockpit sir? modern missiles?? a proper nav system??? decnt comms and interoperability???? a defence suppression package????

Why sir - that's £ 20 Bn..................... and ten years testing

[alfred_the_great]

Don't forget the safety paperwork either. Ole' tuc won't let you move without safety paperwork.

[Pontius Navigator]

Atg, you mean a guarantee that girders won't break under 15g.

[alfred_the_great]

pass - but I'm sure there's a safety case somewhere that'll tell you.

[Pontius Navigator]

atg, remember in this day and age it is easier, safer and cheaper to say NO than stick your neck out and say YES.