RAF pushing to take over nuclear deterrent?
Suspicion breeds confidence
Thread Starter
RAF pushing to take over nuclear deterrent?
An article from the Scotsman claims that planning for the Trident replacement is underway and ends with saying that the RAF is pushing regain control of the nuclear deterrent. I'm sure it is, but with what? Surely the vulnerability of aircraft and airbases was the catalyst for moving to a submarine platform. Can an air based strategic deterrent be credible?
Last edited by Navaleye; 9th Jun 2004 at 09:53.
Mmmm.
Not exactly. The real catalyst for going from an air launched deterrent was that the USA 'pulled the rug' on Skybolt, leaving us with a bunch of unpalateable alternatives - continuing with Blue Steel, which was no longer viable, developing a new air launched weapon in an impossibly short timescale, or doing as the US wanted and adopting Polaris.
There was also the perceived importance of the Moscow criteria, under which it was felt to be essential that the UK deterrent should be able to threaten Moscow itself, in the face of an over-exaggerated (largely perceived) ABM defence shield. This criteria later drove Chevaline.
While air bases are inherently more vulnerable (in certain respects) than submarines the advantages and disadvantages are far from clear cut, and it is apparent that the USAF felt that with the right alert posture and deployment capabilities, an air launched deterrent remained entirely viable throughout the Cold War period.
Today, moreover, the Moscow Criteria are entirely irrelevant, and we are not looking at needing to be able to 'launch the deterrent' in the face of some kind of Armageddon-like mass strike by the might of the Soviet ICBM/SLBM/ALCM forces.
Trident (and any sub-launched follow on) represents a massively expensive, relatively inflexible 'overkill', when a cheaper, less capable air launched nuclear option might be better suited to Britain's post Cold War defence needs and budget. Nuclear armed Storm Shadows (say) carried by Tornado, FOAS and MRA 4 would not be remotely 'good enough' if we wanted to penetrate the ABM defences we thought existed around Moscow during the Cold War, but in a post Cold War environment would be good enough against even the most difficult real world targets..... and therefore pretty credible, I'd say?
Not exactly. The real catalyst for going from an air launched deterrent was that the USA 'pulled the rug' on Skybolt, leaving us with a bunch of unpalateable alternatives - continuing with Blue Steel, which was no longer viable, developing a new air launched weapon in an impossibly short timescale, or doing as the US wanted and adopting Polaris.
There was also the perceived importance of the Moscow criteria, under which it was felt to be essential that the UK deterrent should be able to threaten Moscow itself, in the face of an over-exaggerated (largely perceived) ABM defence shield. This criteria later drove Chevaline.
While air bases are inherently more vulnerable (in certain respects) than submarines the advantages and disadvantages are far from clear cut, and it is apparent that the USAF felt that with the right alert posture and deployment capabilities, an air launched deterrent remained entirely viable throughout the Cold War period.
Today, moreover, the Moscow Criteria are entirely irrelevant, and we are not looking at needing to be able to 'launch the deterrent' in the face of some kind of Armageddon-like mass strike by the might of the Soviet ICBM/SLBM/ALCM forces.
Trident (and any sub-launched follow on) represents a massively expensive, relatively inflexible 'overkill', when a cheaper, less capable air launched nuclear option might be better suited to Britain's post Cold War defence needs and budget. Nuclear armed Storm Shadows (say) carried by Tornado, FOAS and MRA 4 would not be remotely 'good enough' if we wanted to penetrate the ABM defences we thought existed around Moscow during the Cold War, but in a post Cold War environment would be good enough against even the most difficult real world targets..... and therefore pretty credible, I'd say?
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: troon
Age: 61
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not a great fan of the RAF - Way too politically powerfull for my liking. But I hope they do get it. Low down is that trident is a nuclear deterrent, but you can't really use it for much else. Probably better to offer this weapons up as sweetener for arms reduction talks. Then convert the Boats to SSGN platforms (Would it be possible to convert the Lunch tubes to TLAM or egress routes for covert commando type deployment?) Then with the money saved in closing Coulport and bagging all its civil servants. Start purchasing some decent Long range Bombers for the Crabs. (B2/B52 or even B1) and buy a stake into a future replacement with the yanks. Also procure Nuke headed TLAM for Sub/Surface and air launch platforms.
... just a thought anyway
... just a thought anyway
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Fantasy Island
Posts: 555
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now I'm not a tree hugger by any means........but......
I thought this was the whole point.....that the only use for nuclear weapons is as a deterrent?
Who remembers Yes Prime Minister?
"With Trident we could obliterate the whole of Eastern Europe."
"I don't want to obliterate the whole of Eastern Europe."
"It's a deterrent."
"It's a bluff. I probably wouldn't use it."
"Yes, but they don't know that you probably wouldn't."
"They probably do."
"Yes, they probably know that you probably wouldn't. But they can't certainly know."
"They probably certainly know that I probably wouldn't."
"Yes, but even though they probably certainly know that you probably wouldn't, they don't certainly know that, although you probably wouldn't, there is no probability that you certainly would!"
Low down is that trident is a nuclear deterrent, but you can't really use it for much else.
Who remembers Yes Prime Minister?
"With Trident we could obliterate the whole of Eastern Europe."
"I don't want to obliterate the whole of Eastern Europe."
"It's a deterrent."
"It's a bluff. I probably wouldn't use it."
"Yes, but they don't know that you probably wouldn't."
"They probably do."
"Yes, they probably know that you probably wouldn't. But they can't certainly know."
"They probably certainly know that I probably wouldn't."
"Yes, but even though they probably certainly know that you probably wouldn't, they don't certainly know that, although you probably wouldn't, there is no probability that you certainly would!"
Cunning Artificer
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The spiritual home of DeHavilland
Age: 76
Posts: 3,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ICBM or Cruise missiles? That is the question.
The old cold war theories are no longer applicable. The reason for having a nuclear strike force will be based on the need to deter rogue states from threatening your nation. Proliferation is inevitable and disarmament is but a dream. Imagine a world where the only defence against, lets say, a nuclear armed Iran, was your nation's relations the USA? The world is much more scary than it was during the cold war I'm afraid. We need a nuclear retaliation force capable of striking anywhere on the surface of the globe and that force must come at the lowest possible cost. Navy or RAF. Preferably both.
The old cold war theories are no longer applicable. The reason for having a nuclear strike force will be based on the need to deter rogue states from threatening your nation. Proliferation is inevitable and disarmament is but a dream. Imagine a world where the only defence against, lets say, a nuclear armed Iran, was your nation's relations the USA? The world is much more scary than it was during the cold war I'm afraid. We need a nuclear retaliation force capable of striking anywhere on the surface of the globe and that force must come at the lowest possible cost. Navy or RAF. Preferably both.
Second Strike capability is not currently needed I grant. Therefore a few Storm Shadow sunshine buckets would be a much cheaper way to stay in the nuclear war club.
However, over the next 30 years I worry that the SSBN may once again become a necessary tool of defence. By 2034 there will be an awful lot of nuclear armed states and whilst missile technology is hard work - fitting out a dozen+ trawlers isn't..
Cheers
WWW
However, over the next 30 years I worry that the SSBN may once again become a necessary tool of defence. By 2034 there will be an awful lot of nuclear armed states and whilst missile technology is hard work - fitting out a dozen+ trawlers isn't..
Cheers
WWW
A strategic deterrent has to be neither ballistic NOR sub launched. Tomahawk or NASOM would fit the bill, and, moreover, would be more genuinely independednt of the US than continued reliance on Trident.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Much-Binding-in-the-Marsh
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The new Trident will certainly be very expensive and single role equipment is something we are desparately trying to phase out (cf Tornado F3). So it is only logical to at least consider other options as we approach the OSD of Trident. Affordability will be the key.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Up North
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"If UK PLC loses its ballistic missile capability, it loses its strategic nuclear capability. That is the bottom line."
And what is your point?
The dodgy dossier (mk 2) made much of Saddam's supposed capability to hit Cyprus with a BM.
In any case, the footprint required to stage a strike would not be cheap! Airstrip, AAR, force protection, SEAD, ISTAR etc! This would also depend on getting enough notice to deploy forces or having them in theatre already - garrisons worldwide at what cost? Or an expensive naval fleet! Even a sub-launched TLABM would require to the sub to be in position and that takes time.
Trident is over-expensive - agreed - and a cheaper version using the same concept would be very desirable. TLABMs ain't it!
Join Date: May 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The biggest problem a nuclear deterrent has is that it must be invulnerable to a first strike ensuring that no matter what is fired at us, we can still fire back.
The biggest disadvantage of making it airlaunched is that its fairly easy to take out an airbase with a big bomb - we know where it is, we know roughly whats there and hopefully a big bucket of sunshine will do the trick.
The big advantage SSBNS offer is that they are almost silent (allegedly) hard to track and with probably 3 at sea in a REALLY bad crisis very difficult to take out all at once (assuming the UK decides that if one goes we may well fire).
My preferred view option would to to "nuclearise" the storm shadow AND the TLAM or its succesor, providing a cheap and cheerful deterrent which can be at sea and land/air simaltaneously. The challenge this presents to an aggressor is to have an armed force capable of doing ASW AND land attack at the same time with nukes.
Of course we could all learn to love each other...
The biggest disadvantage of making it airlaunched is that its fairly easy to take out an airbase with a big bomb - we know where it is, we know roughly whats there and hopefully a big bucket of sunshine will do the trick.
The big advantage SSBNS offer is that they are almost silent (allegedly) hard to track and with probably 3 at sea in a REALLY bad crisis very difficult to take out all at once (assuming the UK decides that if one goes we may well fire).
My preferred view option would to to "nuclearise" the storm shadow AND the TLAM or its succesor, providing a cheap and cheerful deterrent which can be at sea and land/air simaltaneously. The challenge this presents to an aggressor is to have an armed force capable of doing ASW AND land attack at the same time with nukes.
Of course we could all learn to love each other...
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Age: 46
Posts: 642
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The RAF taking over the Strategic Nuclear Deterrent is well and fine. But look what happened to the RN after it got Polaris. Bye bye CVA01.
I would imagine in todays even tighter budgetary constraints should the RAF want to take over the deterrent role it will have to face some large cuts in other areas. Yes an airborne nuclear deterrent would be cheaper then submarine option but still some large cuts elsewhere will be required.
I wonder what the reaction of the Chief of Air Staff would be if he is told "Yes you can have the deterrent role but you have to bin eurofighter, Nimrod Mk4 and say four or five front line bases to fund it".
I would imagine in todays even tighter budgetary constraints should the RAF want to take over the deterrent role it will have to face some large cuts in other areas. Yes an airborne nuclear deterrent would be cheaper then submarine option but still some large cuts elsewhere will be required.
I wonder what the reaction of the Chief of Air Staff would be if he is told "Yes you can have the deterrent role but you have to bin eurofighter, Nimrod Mk4 and say four or five front line bases to fund it".
This is all old fashioned muddled thinking again. We face no threat from any nation state armed with nukes, we do however face a significant threat of a nuke, chem or biological weapon being detonated in one of our major cities or at a major public attended event.
This threat comes from al Qaeda and it's almost franchised supporters. Who are you going to launch a nuke at then?
Ballistic missile or cruise missile, they all seem pretty pointless in todays world.
This threat comes from al Qaeda and it's almost franchised supporters. Who are you going to launch a nuke at then?
Ballistic missile or cruise missile, they all seem pretty pointless in todays world.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The high cost of the V boats is one side of the coin, but the flip side is possibly more significant. Trident buys us our seat as a permanent member of the UN Security Council and allows us the luxury of a veto ! Somehow I suspect that we may be relegated to second class status if we do away with ICBMs. As I understand it the US have no plans for a Trident replacement and UK plc certainly cannot afford to go it alone; thus, we will be faced with the choices already discussed on this thread somewhere in the not too distant future. IMHO the government of the day will look at the cost, make savings elsewhere within the defence budget to ensure their continuing presence as a permanent member of the UNSC. Call me cynical, but I cannot see any of our politicians giving away the right to veto UNSC resolutions..............
BT
BT