RAF pushing to take over nuclear deterrent?
Found this.........I know it is from a anti nuclear group but still interesting:
Trident Life Extension
No need for new systems or infrastructure....
Trident Life Extension
No need for new systems or infrastructure....
Guest
Posts: n/a
noone has yet answered the question of what are you going to throw a nuke at these days
Nope, best place for them is under the sea miles away from you and I and a place where only 3/4 people knows where they are.
I did hear a rumour that in the 1960's Poseidon was delivered V. Late (a couple of years late) but actually it didnt matter as we had the SSBN's on patrol and the Russians knew they were there and so there was the deterent. The fact that there were no missiles was irrelevant...
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: troon
Age: 61
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
so if we revert to an air launched capability which island will we have to re-position this time to make the range?
Capt Chaos
Does this refer to the Little story about when The Rt Hon Denis Healy was trying to justify his Carrier policy back in 1966 he supposedly approached the RAF and told them to justify their claim that they could support the fleet anywhere in the world
And (the RAF) in realising that there was a gaping hole in the southern Atlantic, moved Aus (Or NZ?) to the right by 2000 miles?
I heard it from a WAFU ATC who was serving in Lossie a couple of years back but I find the story so incredible that I don't believe it myself
This is one of the great CVA01 legends. While a lot of material exists pushing this line, no-one has yet found hard documentary evidence to support it - almost every source cited is Admiral Snooks telling the author/historian that the dastardly RAF moved an island several thousand miles. Or 500. Or 600. And it was Australia/New Zealand/some Polynesian island.
As well as these inconstistencies, it is rather surprising that nobody on the RAF side has ever admitted doing this (or if they have, this hasn't been widely circulated).
There was, IIRC, a tale of one RAF officer who admitted that the map was wrong, but then noted that it had been supplied by the Admiralty, and that the RAF had simply marked on the airfields, radius of action, etc, etc for the F-111 - although I have always doubted the tale myself (did the RAF not have any maps??).
Jury is still out and several naval history colleagues tell me that various people are still hunting for the smoking gun in the form of documentation at the PRO.
As well as these inconstistencies, it is rather surprising that nobody on the RAF side has ever admitted doing this (or if they have, this hasn't been widely circulated).
There was, IIRC, a tale of one RAF officer who admitted that the map was wrong, but then noted that it had been supplied by the Admiralty, and that the RAF had simply marked on the airfields, radius of action, etc, etc for the F-111 - although I have always doubted the tale myself (did the RAF not have any maps??).
Jury is still out and several naval history colleagues tell me that various people are still hunting for the smoking gun in the form of documentation at the PRO.
Back to the nuclear topic
See here.
The UK's Trident nuclear arsenal is to get a £1bn boost over three years to ensure it is "reliable and safe" for its remaining two decades of service.
At the same time everything else is being cut? Does the Government have the right priorities?
In some ways I think there is merit in What Michael Portillo said.
"If the UK diverts billions of pounds from its future defence budgets into nuclear weapons that will never be used, it will have less money to spend on useful things such as aircraft carriers and submarines that fire cruise missiles."
Example: The UK (according to the Government) does not need things like Organic Air Defence as we will not enage in major operations with the US, yet need our own nuclear capability. Why?
BTW I am naturally pro nuclear, but...... can nuclear weapons serve the UK/West in the post Cold War world as well as they did during the stand off with the USSR?
The UK's Trident nuclear arsenal is to get a £1bn boost over three years to ensure it is "reliable and safe" for its remaining two decades of service.
At the same time everything else is being cut? Does the Government have the right priorities?
In some ways I think there is merit in What Michael Portillo said.
"If the UK diverts billions of pounds from its future defence budgets into nuclear weapons that will never be used, it will have less money to spend on useful things such as aircraft carriers and submarines that fire cruise missiles."
Example: The UK (according to the Government) does not need things like Organic Air Defence as we will not enage in major operations with the US, yet need our own nuclear capability. Why?
BTW I am naturally pro nuclear, but...... can nuclear weapons serve the UK/West in the post Cold War world as well as they did during the stand off with the USSR?
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 26th Jul 2005 at 21:48.
Perhaps it woldn't have paid for that much new stuff, but it would reduce the cuts...
It could've kept the Sea Harrier force (all three units) in service until the arrival of JSF. Twice. Could've bought spares - and improved the material condition and readiness of our forces.
According to the First Sea Lord, it costs in the order of £8 million per annum to run a Type 23 frigate. Three of these were cut as part of the cuts last year. I don't know what it costs of run 801 NAS, but I imagine it probably is similar.
Our we more likely to find ourselves in a situation which reqiures us being able of counter a nuclear threat, without US involvement, than one (with or with the US) that demand various capibilities that have ben cut (land based fighters, carrier based fighters, attack aircraft, tankers, helicopters, frigates, submarines, minehunters, infantry, armour etc)?
One of the reason the UK developed a nuclear capability was to demontsrate independence from the US. But is nuclear independence (of a sort) more important from an international poltics viewpoint than the ability to conduct major independent conventional operations?
It could've kept the Sea Harrier force (all three units) in service until the arrival of JSF. Twice. Could've bought spares - and improved the material condition and readiness of our forces.
According to the First Sea Lord, it costs in the order of £8 million per annum to run a Type 23 frigate. Three of these were cut as part of the cuts last year. I don't know what it costs of run 801 NAS, but I imagine it probably is similar.
Our we more likely to find ourselves in a situation which reqiures us being able of counter a nuclear threat, without US involvement, than one (with or with the US) that demand various capibilities that have ben cut (land based fighters, carrier based fighters, attack aircraft, tankers, helicopters, frigates, submarines, minehunters, infantry, armour etc)?
One of the reason the UK developed a nuclear capability was to demontsrate independence from the US. But is nuclear independence (of a sort) more important from an international poltics viewpoint than the ability to conduct major independent conventional operations?
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: troon
Age: 61
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WEBF,
They quoted in one of the defence select committee meetings that to keep the 3 Shar Squadrons would have cost £109 million.
So you could have kept it going almost 8x over
That kind of cut seems like small beer today.
BTW having done most of my CS career in Faslane during Trident development I seriously have to question why we still need it? It was perfectly valid then (Late 80's) but now?
I think i've said this before but getting rid of the missiles and converting the boats to SSGN's makes much more sense to me in today's threat environment.
They quoted in one of the defence select committee meetings that to keep the 3 Shar Squadrons would have cost £109 million.
So you could have kept it going almost 8x over
That kind of cut seems like small beer today.
BTW having done most of my CS career in Faslane during Trident development I seriously have to question why we still need it? It was perfectly valid then (Late 80's) but now?
I think i've said this before but getting rid of the missiles and converting the boats to SSGN's makes much more sense to me in today's threat environment.
1) A nuclear device can only be made by a state.
2) States contain spies.
3) Were such a device to be used in a place not desireable to the White House an investigation would be able to establish in which State the device had been enabled.
4) That State would then fall foul of well known US strategic doctrine.
Just because a load of terrorist losers are willing to unleash bombs of whatever nature in our cities is no reason to fear a WMD attack. The States supplying the material have an awful lot to lose and therefore won't.
The next 30yrs will be based strategically on China and India and Brazil. Whether you want or need a Strategic deterrence against them is the issue germane here.
Cheers
WWW
2) States contain spies.
3) Were such a device to be used in a place not desireable to the White House an investigation would be able to establish in which State the device had been enabled.
4) That State would then fall foul of well known US strategic doctrine.
Just because a load of terrorist losers are willing to unleash bombs of whatever nature in our cities is no reason to fear a WMD attack. The States supplying the material have an awful lot to lose and therefore won't.
The next 30yrs will be based strategically on China and India and Brazil. Whether you want or need a Strategic deterrence against them is the issue germane here.
Cheers
WWW
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Red Red Back to Bed
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
£1 Bn to keep the force up and running for 20 years - seems a bargain IMHO.
Just think of those States around this very unstable world that have or are developing nuclear capability, WWW alluding to some of them above. A Trident boat potentially within range of your major cities would make most rogue leaders think twice about doing anything untoward, I guess that is the rationale behind the present Trident fleet. There's no point in having lots of shiny new ships, aircraft or tanks if some crackpot is going to have a nuclear pop at you or your allies and you can show no capability to respond like with like. The basis of deterrence, not against the single traditional Cold War threat but against any number of smaller (in size) threats. Could we do it cheaper another way? - open to debate.
I personally think the world is a much more dangerous place post Cold War than during - at least we knew where we stood (sort of) then.
Oggin
Just think of those States around this very unstable world that have or are developing nuclear capability, WWW alluding to some of them above. A Trident boat potentially within range of your major cities would make most rogue leaders think twice about doing anything untoward, I guess that is the rationale behind the present Trident fleet. There's no point in having lots of shiny new ships, aircraft or tanks if some crackpot is going to have a nuclear pop at you or your allies and you can show no capability to respond like with like. The basis of deterrence, not against the single traditional Cold War threat but against any number of smaller (in size) threats. Could we do it cheaper another way? - open to debate.
I personally think the world is a much more dangerous place post Cold War than during - at least we knew where we stood (sort of) then.
Oggin
But. Equal deterrence can be achieved at a fraction of the cost by saying "you nuke us - we send the SAS in with a suitcase device into downtown squalidsville the week after".
No 7,000 man multi billion pound annual funding required.
This doesn't work against the likes of Russia and China. But if you ain't really worried about them then best buy a few deployable sunshine suitcases and spend the money saved on deployable assets.
Me, I'd buy mine hunters, diesel SSBNs, F15's, light tanks and a whole heck of really well trained well paid well educated inftantry.
But what the hell do I know?
Cheers
WWW
No 7,000 man multi billion pound annual funding required.
This doesn't work against the likes of Russia and China. But if you ain't really worried about them then best buy a few deployable sunshine suitcases and spend the money saved on deployable assets.
Me, I'd buy mine hunters, diesel SSBNs, F15's, light tanks and a whole heck of really well trained well paid well educated inftantry.
But what the hell do I know?
Cheers
WWW
Suspicion breeds confidence
Thread Starter
FFP has hit the nail on the head. No British PM would want to give up his P5 seat especially with the Germans and Japanese knocking on the door.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Trident and a deterrent are not inextricably linked. We had a deterrent before Polaris and could again.
UN Security Council seats are not inextricably linked to nuclear weapons. The majority of the candidate nations for new seats do not have them.
The argument in the context of this thread would seem, therefore, to be flawed on both grounds.
UN Security Council seats are not inextricably linked to nuclear weapons. The majority of the candidate nations for new seats do not have them.
The argument in the context of this thread would seem, therefore, to be flawed on both grounds.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Brasil
Posts: 351
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UN Security Council seats are not inextricably linked to nuclear weapons.
So maybe they aren't linked, but two of the most populous nations and candidates for the UNSC seem to think that they are extremely desirable.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Much-Binding-in-the-Marsh
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having looked at this thread again for the first time in a long time I'm struck by the number of apparently naval contributers who seem to be rather paranoid and defensive about the RN holding on to the deterrent and the absence of a body of RAF contributers arguing to take it over. Conclusion - the RAF ain't pushing for it to happen. That said it is going to be an interesting debate - Dr Reid said recently that after Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan the replacement of Trident was his next biggest headache. There will be many conflicting views (even from within the Labour party - maybe that should be especially within ...) and the money will be a big factor.
