Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

RAF pushing to take over nuclear deterrent?

Wikiposts
Search
Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

RAF pushing to take over nuclear deterrent?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 11th Jun 2004, 20:41
  #21 (permalink)  

Rebel PPRuNer
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada (formerly EICK)
Age: 51
Posts: 2,834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Tomahawk-N as UK nuclear deterrent

Someone has already looked into this...

http://www.stormingmedia.us/54/5459/A545953.html

Tomahawk data

http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/T/Tomahawk-missile.htm

another site quotes

"because of the similarities between SSGNs and SSBNs, friends and foes will be unable to tell initially whether a missile launch involves a conventional Tomahawk cruise missile or a nuclear-armed Trident."

I imagine one disincentive for Tomahawk-N is that it's even harder to determine whether an inbound Tomahawk is nuclear or not, thus creating the possibility of mistaken retaliation.

http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/nu...3nukenote.html
MarkD is offline  
Old 12th Jun 2004, 04:02
  #22 (permalink)  
Lupus Domesticus
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NZ
Posts: 520
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Why not have both, as Israel has now done?

Surely in this ever more uncertain world, with shifting threat scenarios, a current enemy who is difficult to track let alone defend against to say the least, and a potential tomorrow which is far less predictable than today, flexibility has to be a valuable option?
BlueWolf is offline  
Old 12th Jun 2004, 15:43
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 887
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Planning for today is one thing and planning for tomorrow another, but what we should be doing is planning for 15-20 years down the road. Political situations, enemies, alliances - they can all change very quickly, and certainly within the lead time of most military equipment. So if we want something - anything - in the inventory by, say, 2020 we'd better get it organised now. This, of course, calls for crystal ball-gazing of the highest order and I'm just glad that it's not my job.
Zoom is offline  
Old 12th Jun 2004, 16:58
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 898
Received 12 Likes on 7 Posts
A bit crappy

"Friends and foes will be unable to tell initially whether a missile launch involves a conventional Tomahawk or a nuclear armed Trident"

What the fcuk? Tomahawk - cruise missile, bogglers along at low altitude leaving fairly small IR signature, travelling at just under Mach 1. Trident - SLBM, hurtles near vertically upwards into near-earth space on a ballistic trajectory producing all the IR signature imaginable. And the "similarities" only apply if they are tracking the submarine anyway!

D'you think they meant they would be unable to tell the difference between a TLAM-C and TLAM-N before it hit? Which is of course quite true.
steamchicken is offline  
Old 14th Jun 2004, 22:46
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,809
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 1 Post
Impiger:
Affordability will be the key.
Now why on earth would that have anything to do with it?
NorthSouth is online now  
Old 15th Jun 2004, 10:20
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Lincs
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Cool

Navaleye,

Good thread – nice to get a decent intellectual debate going. Nevertheless:

'RAF is pushing to regain control of the nuclear deterrent. I'm sure it is'
Your single service paranoia is evident – and prehistoric. For those of us that understand the pain of Strike Qual – the RN can keep it!

However, decisions of this nature will not be dictated by the ambition of any one individual or Service to become pre-eminent and to entertain such a notion is rather immature. UK Plc will assess the threats over the short and medium term, determine capabilities required to counter or manage the threats and procure equipment accordingly. Prediction of threats is inherently imprecise – beware being smart with hindsight that we haven’t always got it right. Cost is, of course, a significant factor because the pie is only so big; if strategic deterrent eats it all up you have nothing left for other military capabilities – or hospitals, or schools. It is not ‘un-military’ to consider cost. ‘Joint’ is not just a trendy term – it is the only way to get the maximum capability from finite resources. Joint capability requires the right organisational structures but, above all else, the right mindset. Clearly, we are not all there yet. Blacksheep is.
Captain Kirk is offline  
Old 15th Jun 2004, 10:46
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I totally agree about jointery. Its just a shame some in the RAF refuse to see the RN's carriers as a truly joint asset and persist in seeing them as a threat.
Jimlad is offline  
Old 15th Jun 2004, 11:14
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: SE England
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I suspect there is some very high-level political gamesmanship going on here, and not just between the RAF and the RN. The UK/US mutual defence agreement is up for renewal, so Trident, Cruise and nuke cooperation is all being reassessed - and in the aftermath of 9-11 and in today's post Cold War world there are serious questions being asked in America about the future of NATO and the relationship with allies. Without US cooperation we have no Trident, and no Cruise. So it's either a freefall weapon or adapted Storm Shadow - requiring French cooperation?

A clear signal from the UK that we intend to remain a 'major power' will doubtless have some sort of input on US deliberations, and Blair's insistence on getting involved with the US in Iraq (despite US misgivings) was quite possibly a strategic ploy too.



http://www.acronym.org.uk/dd/dd76/76news04.htm
US-UK Nuclear Weapons Cooperation Up for Renewal

http://www.basicint.org/nuclear/NPT/2004pc/1958MDA.htm
1958 US-UK Mutual Defence Agreement

[edited for spilling]

Last edited by Smoketoomuch; 15th Jun 2004 at 11:55.
Smoketoomuch is offline  
Old 15th Jun 2004, 11:49
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Up North
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
So we are probably paying up-front in Iraq for our continued ballistic missile strategic nuclear deterrence....
JessTheDog is offline  
Old 16th Jun 2004, 17:59
  #30 (permalink)  
Suspicion breeds confidence
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Gibraltar
Posts: 2,405
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes on 3 Posts
Captain Kirk, (is it true about the wig BTW). Actually this is one subject where I have no axe to grind. The nuclear capability needs to change along with the conventional to reflect the threat, so I'm open minded. Please do not characterise me as paranoid. I suspect that the fact is that the UK will do whatever the US does when the time to replace Trident arrives.probably LR cruise missiles will be the answer.

Navaleye - goddam the walls are closing in again.
Navaleye is offline  
Old 16th Jun 2004, 20:28
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I saw this a while ago and was very amused by the prospect of Bill Gates in the RN TLAM process...

*click*

"You have chosen to launch a cruise missile at Tehran"

*click*

"Sorry, Tehran is not recognised"

*swear*

"Please install the latest Geopolitical patch from whodoyouwanttobombtoday.m...m/updates"

*click*

"Sorry, Geopolitical update requires IE 7"

*click*

"Sorry, IE 7 requires Windows XP 2005"

*more swearing click click click .... 4 days later*

"Welcome to your new installation of Windows XP 2005,
please enter the 254 digit serial key found on the back of the CD-case"

*taptaptaptappitytaptaptaptaptappitytaptaptaptaptaptap
tappitytaptaptaptaptappitytaptaptaptaptaptaptappitytap
taptaptaptappitytaptaptap*

"Sorry you have entered an incorrect code, please enter
again. Warning if you fail to enter the correct code 3 times
your windows installation will be deleted from your hard drive
and you will need to install again"

*profanity .. taptaptaptappitytaptaptaptaptappitytaptaptaptaptaptap
tappitytaptaptaptaptappitytaptaptaptaptaptaptappitytap
taptaptaptappitytaptaptap*

"Sorry you have entered an incorrect code, please enter
again. Warning if you fail to enter the correct code 3 times
your windows installation will be deleted from your hard drive
and you will need to install again"

*ranting and profanity taptaptaptappitytaptaptaptaptappitytaptaptaptaptaptap
tappitytaptaptaptaptappitytaptaptaptaptaptaptappitytap
taptaptaptappitytaptaptaptaptaptaptappitytaptaptaptap
tappitytaptaptaptaptaptaptappitytaptaptaptaptappity
taptaptaptaptaptaptappitytaptaptaptaptappitytaptaptap*

"You have entered the correct code, please click 'OK' to
continue"

*phew click*

"Thank you for installing Windows XP 2005, we hope that you
will enjoy the many new features"

*click*

"New hardware detected ...... 6 533mm torpedo tubes, one type 2076 sonar,

"Welcome to Windows XP 2005 Military Submarine Edition,
who do you want to bomb today?"

*click*

"Where have all my targets gone? Click on the start button,
select Programs, select nations and choose the nation you wish to bomb"

*clickclickpausehmmmmclick*

"Welcome to the 'Bomb Iran' Wizard, please click next to
continue"

*click*

"Please enter the message you wish scribbled on the
side of the ordance"

*tap tap tappity tap tap tap*

"Thank you, please click next to continue"

*click*

"Please select the City or Town where your target
is situated"

*click*

"Please enter the co-ordinates of your target"

*taptaptappityclick*

"Please wait, accessing target's records ... layout of target
found, please select door, window or ventillation shaft you
wish the ordance to enter"

*click"

"You have selected the ventillation shaft next to the toilets,
please use the slider below to set the approximate yield for
the ordance you wish to use then press next"

*slide...click*

"Based on your target criteria, yield and entry point I have
determined the appropriate ordance to be : GBU-131"

"Sorry, GBU-131 is not compatible with Windows XP 2005
Military Submarine Edition, please enter new criteria or click
on "Manual" to manually select the ordance you wish to use"


*mutter mutter not compatible with sub why choose it stupid
software click click*

"Thank you, you have manually chosen the TLAM cruise
missile, I have selected an appropriate warhead for your
chosen yield : 50 Megaton Nuclear Device"


*blink hmmmmmmm okay this could be fun, wonder if the
captain would believe me if I said it was the computers fault...click*

"Sorry, your nation is not equipped with 50 Megaton Nuclear
Device, please make your selection from the list ->"

*aww no fair wanted to see big badda boom..click*

"Congratulations, you have selected the 2000 pound
conventional warhead"

*mutter spoils port I wanted my big badda boom...click*

"Please enter the number of missiles you wish to launch"

*tap click*

"Sorry, your device is only fitted with 6 torpedo tubes,
please choose a number between 1 and 6"

*bugger! tap click*

"Thank you, please enter the time you wish to launch
this cruise missile"

*clickclickclick*

"You have selected 11:45 Hours on the 11th of June, 2003,
press Next to continue"

*eh? damn it only accepts american date format mutter
mutter click click click*

"You have selected 11:45 Hours on the 5th of November,
2003, press Next to continue"

"You are nearly there! please click on Launch to launch your
selected ordance at : Tehran Security Service Building with a
selected yield of 2000 Lb warhead 4 of to launch at 11:45
Hours on the 5th of November, 2003. If this is correct,
please click on 'Launch'*

*W00t! finally!* *click*

"Congratulations you have succesfully launched a TLAM
cruise missile with 2000 LB warhead at Tehran Security
Services Building. Please click next if you wish to launch
another attack or cancel if you wish to exit this wizard and
choose another target"

*sigh only 20 more targets to go .. click click click ..........................er?*

"Ordance now launching, please ensure you have opened
torpedo tubes 1 2 3 4 5 6 before you launched ordance"

*oh .. oh @#%$ ... oh @#%$ .. CAPTAI......*
Jimlad is offline  
Old 16th Jun 2004, 22:24
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Close by!
Posts: 324
Received 4 Likes on 2 Posts
Very good
But you do need to get out more
insty66 is offline  
Old 17th Jun 2004, 06:58
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Fascinating discussion but noone has yet answered the question of what are you going to throw a nuke at these days. There was a logical reason for having them in the days when there were two sides, each with enough nukes to make the dust bounce several times over. But now?

Who is likely to use them and have something worth while to throw one back at? Pakistan and India? Can't see HMG responding to that should they decide the question of Kashmir cannot be decided on a cricket pitch.

North vs South Korea? I would have thought China more likely to step on that given the risk to its economic growth.

China and Taiwan? Should China finally decide that democracy on its doorstep is not conducive to keeping the masses in place then its a possibility. However, is the RAF going to get orders to fly to the other side of the world to participate in something that may be of marginal interest to HMG? I don't think so. Far more likely a SSBM as it could probably drop one (of many) without going far from home waters.

Middle east? Can't see anyone getting involved there until both sides have sufficiently massacred themselves and then only to clean up the mess despite the effort and involvement in Iraq.

Jimlad

I was recently told (third hand) that at a certain "joint" space research base not far from where I am writing this that Mr Gates' finest products are not allowed anywhere near their computers where the continued operation of them is critical to the base's mission.
PLovett is offline  
Old 17th Jun 2004, 09:27
  #34 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 17,515
Received 1,654 Likes on 758 Posts
Microsoft and the USN
ORAC is online now  
Old 17th Jun 2004, 11:54
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Isn't there a thing like a manual override?
chippy63 is offline  
Old 17th Jun 2004, 12:14
  #36 (permalink)  
Suspicion breeds confidence
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Gibraltar
Posts: 2,405
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes on 3 Posts
the article said "...began running shipboard applications under Microsoft Windows NT.."

Hmnn. Windows NT is no longer supported by Microsoft themselves. The problem is that procurements on both sides of the Atlantic take so damned long they are usually obsolete by the time they reach the end user.

I worked on 8 operational projects. None took less than 6 years to complete. That's a life time in IT terms. The other problem is that all Microsoft products ane built with usability first and reliability second. If you want reliability use something else.

Anyone remember "Trusted Solaris"? That was a real OS.
Navaleye is offline  
Old 17th Jun 2004, 12:27
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: 59°45'36N 10°27'59E
Posts: 1,032
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
My radar scope is running Windows XP Prof. Edit.

It has pinball and solitary on it as well!!!

*ahh..no traffic*

*Radar.....minimize*

*Pinball.....launch*

M609 is offline  
Old 5th Jul 2004, 15:54
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Devon
Posts: 2,813
Received 20 Likes on 16 Posts
Wouldn't it be cheaper to extend the life of Trident and of the Vanguard boats?

On the subject of Trident, you might be interested in these two papers....

New roles for VANGUARD

and

Modifying capacity

What about combining a V/STOL type aircaft with nuclear tipped stand off weapons? The number of places such an aircraft could operate from (no need for a long runway like conventional aircraft) must be high. This mobility would give it great survivability, with them being spead over a wide area, with the flaxability that missiles don't give you.

Or am I being dumb?
WE Branch Fanatic is online now  
Old 5th Jul 2004, 17:46
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Red Red Back to Bed
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Or better still deploy them in advance and hook them up to a server. Then you could detonate when required via the www. Makes you wonder whether this has already been thought of....too scary to comtemplate -
JFZ90 - Have you read "Liberty" by Stephen Coonts - Nuclear weapons buried beneath American cities - spooky !
Oggin Aviator is offline  
Old 5th Jul 2004, 18:35
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
How many nations operate fighter / strike aircraft compared to those that have effective and capable submarines? The RAF tacking over strategic defence is pointless these days.

Furthermore submarines can remain 'in theatre' indefinitely if required and can turn up on your adversaries doorstep if need be... even if they're land locked. They require no friendly bases nor do they require the plethora of man power as mentioned above.

Are they trying to find jobs for the Nimrod / Typhoon per chance???
waivar is offline  


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.