Future Carrier (Including Costs)
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 1,264
Likes: 142
From: Around
They do. All service vehicles are GPS tracked. Possibly how he was found out...
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 489
Likes: 0
From: England
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,924
Likes: 7
From: UK
Originally Posted by Lordflasheart
Does anyone know if the offending vehicle has RN plates or is it civvie DVLA registered ?
In the past, ship captains were loaned vehicles by Jaguar Land Rover but the agreement with the British manufacturer ended and the Ford Galaxy used by the Queen Elizabeth captain was paid for by the MoD
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,445
Likes: 204
From: Location: Location!
Well done to the crew to stand up to this sort of thing, assuming the vehicle was a service provided vehicle for service use would she actually have had a services licence whatever it is called these days or insurance to drive it?
I agree with the handling of this too, poor, he should have been removed straight away and as for sailing it south his second in command should have been elected to the task if a replacement couldn't be found, if the second in command isn't deemed competent enough to do this by those further up the food chain, then he shouldn't be in the job.
i remember a certain Station Commanders wife in the past. who was driving her husbands car to collect him with the pennant on and was insisting on being saluted, she was soon put right on the subject.
I agree with the handling of this too, poor, he should have been removed straight away and as for sailing it south his second in command should have been elected to the task if a replacement couldn't be found, if the second in command isn't deemed competent enough to do this by those further up the food chain, then he shouldn't be in the job.
i remember a certain Station Commanders wife in the past. who was driving her husbands car to collect him with the pennant on and was insisting on being saluted, she was soon put right on the subject.
Taking up Nutty's point about the command of QUEEN ELIZABETH, the Executive Officer should indeed be able to take over temporary command, but as alluded to earlier, the best replacement at least in the short term is clearly the incoming Captain of PRINCE OF WALES.
Jack
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,158
Likes: 49
From: UK
Looks like the MoD needs to sort out its service vehicle policy and do so rather quickly. This event and a few significant others have caused confusion and consternation. There are many service personnel who, by the nature of their role and duties, are required to be on-call at all times (except on leave) and must only be driving service vehicles due to the equipment carried or their role. It was understood that COs had broad powers to determine who fell into such categories and that these vehicles would inevitably be used for domestic travel, including things like taking kids to school, in order to meet the out-of-hours response times.
A number of VSOs are also required to respond out-of-hours and are issued with a vehicle and sometimes a dedicated driver. Some even require CPOs at all times when traveling in their area, including any domestic journeys involving their family. There has also been a well-established practice of using MoD vehicles for carriage of civilians and family members (medical, compassionate, repatriation et al) but these too have fallen foul of contradictory policy. Apparently the least helpful document is an AGAI that effectively prohibits vehicles from any domestic use or carriage of civilians. Further confusion exists as the AGAI is, by its name, an army document under army control. Some in the MoD think the AGAI applies equally to all 3 services and MoD civil servants; the RAF and the RN are unclear but some of their documents also point at the AGAI. Of course, with the increasing number of joint establishments the level of confusion increases.
Whilst we might smile of the thought of a VSO being punished for carrying his spouse in his vehicle as a formal +1 to whatever dinner, royal event, baby kissing, grin-and-grip et al, it is having an effect on the lowest ranks and their families - often at the worst of times. I have come across recent examples where family members have been kicked-out of service ambulances, or left abandoned during a repatriation of wounded, injured or sick. The army even directed that family members could not travel on service MT even when participating on a families course for the most seriously injured service personnel as part of their rolling-recovery programme. In that particular case a service charity had to step in and hire vehicles to move families around as a group.
Any remaining command flexibility in MT rules will have evaporated with this public sacking. The tension between the desire to reduce service family accommodation and encourage personnel to live out whilst maintaining an ever-increasing 'informal' out-of-hours commitments may have turned into a loud 'snap'. Moreover, even simple gestures of sending the CO's car to pick-up an injured serviceman's wife will be lost under the crunch of bureaucracy. Those that require weapons, crypto, controlled drugs etc when out-of-hours will face one set of orders that say 'service vehicle only' with another one that effectively says that the issued service vehicle has to stay at work.
I left the Service recently but joined at a time where the majority lived on base, when families could use the medical centre, service youth clubs had MT support, families could fly on MoD aircraft as indulgence passengers and the CO could do whatever he liked with his car and driver unless he was on formal leave. Now just moving civilian passengers across the pan at Brize on an MT coach for their flight to the Falklands has become a prohibited use of MT that the current CO can no longer ignore.
As a final point, whilst we all like to throw stones at VSOs anyone on the MoD system can view their diaries and see how crushing their diaries are by day and by night. Some of these will be the same VSOs dragged-in when a civilian airliner enters UK airspace and causes a big thinks bubble, or when a counter-terrorism response is needed. A CO can be recalled to his ship or command at any time; deprive them of a vehicle or a driver then the 'any time' bit has to be removed too. No doubt the PM will be returning from her constituency home this weekend by driving her own car back to Downing Street...
A number of VSOs are also required to respond out-of-hours and are issued with a vehicle and sometimes a dedicated driver. Some even require CPOs at all times when traveling in their area, including any domestic journeys involving their family. There has also been a well-established practice of using MoD vehicles for carriage of civilians and family members (medical, compassionate, repatriation et al) but these too have fallen foul of contradictory policy. Apparently the least helpful document is an AGAI that effectively prohibits vehicles from any domestic use or carriage of civilians. Further confusion exists as the AGAI is, by its name, an army document under army control. Some in the MoD think the AGAI applies equally to all 3 services and MoD civil servants; the RAF and the RN are unclear but some of their documents also point at the AGAI. Of course, with the increasing number of joint establishments the level of confusion increases.
Whilst we might smile of the thought of a VSO being punished for carrying his spouse in his vehicle as a formal +1 to whatever dinner, royal event, baby kissing, grin-and-grip et al, it is having an effect on the lowest ranks and their families - often at the worst of times. I have come across recent examples where family members have been kicked-out of service ambulances, or left abandoned during a repatriation of wounded, injured or sick. The army even directed that family members could not travel on service MT even when participating on a families course for the most seriously injured service personnel as part of their rolling-recovery programme. In that particular case a service charity had to step in and hire vehicles to move families around as a group.
Any remaining command flexibility in MT rules will have evaporated with this public sacking. The tension between the desire to reduce service family accommodation and encourage personnel to live out whilst maintaining an ever-increasing 'informal' out-of-hours commitments may have turned into a loud 'snap'. Moreover, even simple gestures of sending the CO's car to pick-up an injured serviceman's wife will be lost under the crunch of bureaucracy. Those that require weapons, crypto, controlled drugs etc when out-of-hours will face one set of orders that say 'service vehicle only' with another one that effectively says that the issued service vehicle has to stay at work.
I left the Service recently but joined at a time where the majority lived on base, when families could use the medical centre, service youth clubs had MT support, families could fly on MoD aircraft as indulgence passengers and the CO could do whatever he liked with his car and driver unless he was on formal leave. Now just moving civilian passengers across the pan at Brize on an MT coach for their flight to the Falklands has become a prohibited use of MT that the current CO can no longer ignore.
As a final point, whilst we all like to throw stones at VSOs anyone on the MoD system can view their diaries and see how crushing their diaries are by day and by night. Some of these will be the same VSOs dragged-in when a civilian airliner enters UK airspace and causes a big thinks bubble, or when a counter-terrorism response is needed. A CO can be recalled to his ship or command at any time; deprive them of a vehicle or a driver then the 'any time' bit has to be removed too. No doubt the PM will be returning from her constituency home this weekend by driving her own car back to Downing Street...
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,471
Likes: 844
From: Here 'n' there!
What the actual argument is here (quite apart from my earlier military humour re sand banks and bridges - please, do lighten up a bit) is (i) either the RN completely over-reacted over this or Nick, nice guy, (ii) stuffed up big time ...... orrrrrrr .... (iii) there's some agenda where Nick is a fall guy. That's the real question on PPRune. What is it? (i), (ii) or (iii)?
Just sayin', H 'n' H
Last edited by Hot 'n' High; 26th May 2019 at 09:12. Reason: Delete material to prevent thread drift! :-)
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 370
Likes: 0
From: Sussex
It strikes me, that this has been a PR disaster, OK the question of who drove the MOD vehicle and why, is on the face of it interesting. How much has been invested in a career for on the face of it, it all to be poured down the drain because of use of a vehicle.
More on the PR disaster, is why was a Merlin detached to transport a ship's captain from his ship to dry land, at a cost of what, when as I understand in the Queen Elizabeth has a number of ship's boats, the captain could be piped off the ship and instructed to drive the offending vehicle to an appropriate location to return it, saves a lot of money and embarrassment.
More on the PR disaster, is why was a Merlin detached to transport a ship's captain from his ship to dry land, at a cost of what, when as I understand in the Queen Elizabeth has a number of ship's boats, the captain could be piped off the ship and instructed to drive the offending vehicle to an appropriate location to return it, saves a lot of money and embarrassment.
Thread Starter
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,967
Likes: 100
From: Devon
it seems I am not the only person to be frustrated by a boss who does not understand technology. Nor are we the only navy to suffer political retards:
Trump’s obsession with steam sets up collision with US Navy
US President Donald Trump is ratcheting up the pressure on the US Navy to return to the days of steam-powered catapults for launching jets from aircraft carriers – a multibillion-dollar shift that could take nearly two decades to achieve and would likely spur a clash with Congress.
Trump has spent two years criticising the US Navy's decision to switch to an electromagnetic launch system for its newest class of aircraft carriers, citing delays in rolling out the technology and complaining that “you have to be Albert Einstein to figure it out”.
Perhaps he meant Micheal Faraday?
I was surprised about eighteen months ago when I heard someone claim that if we had gone for CTOL and F/A-18 when would have regenerated Carrier Strike by 2017. He did not say why he thought that. Political dithering delayed the construction, political interference caused no end of problems, and political toxicity made it harder to mitigate against the consequences.
Trump’s obsession with steam sets up collision with US Navy
US President Donald Trump is ratcheting up the pressure on the US Navy to return to the days of steam-powered catapults for launching jets from aircraft carriers – a multibillion-dollar shift that could take nearly two decades to achieve and would likely spur a clash with Congress.
Trump has spent two years criticising the US Navy's decision to switch to an electromagnetic launch system for its newest class of aircraft carriers, citing delays in rolling out the technology and complaining that “you have to be Albert Einstein to figure it out”.
Perhaps he meant Micheal Faraday?
I was surprised about eighteen months ago when I heard someone claim that if we had gone for CTOL and F/A-18 when would have regenerated Carrier Strike by 2017. He did not say why he thought that. Political dithering delayed the construction, political interference caused no end of problems, and political toxicity made it harder to mitigate against the consequences.
Thread Starter
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,967
Likes: 100
From: Devon
Some months ago, the Human Security Centre published a report on threats to NATO's Northern Flank, and one of the things it recommended was that:
The UK’s Royal Navy should take the lead in any early effort to counter offensive Russian submarine operations via a multi-national task group centred upon one of the new Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers.
Remember the embarked Merlin ASW helicopters offer a task group the capability for 24/7 dipping....
Now MOD has announced that we will be making one of the carriers available to NATO.
Sea Control and things like defence of amphibious forces or logistics shipping against submarine, air, and surface threats are very much back on the agenda as much as power projection.
NATO’s ‘Readiness Initiative’ aims to improve the readiness of the alliance’s forces to deploy and move within Europe and across the Atlantic to safeguard international security. The UK will look to make its aircraft carrier a key part of those plans as the country continues to play a leading role in the alliance which has been the cornerstone of its defence for 70 years.
On that note: Qinetiq will provide a new ASW training capability:
Significantly, the new training service supports the Royal Navy’s forthcoming introduction of Queen Elizabeth Class aircraft carriers and will increase ASW training opportunities while also maximising operational deployment of the submarine fleet. Is it significant that it specifically mentions the carriers?
The UK’s Royal Navy should take the lead in any early effort to counter offensive Russian submarine operations via a multi-national task group centred upon one of the new Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers.
Remember the embarked Merlin ASW helicopters offer a task group the capability for 24/7 dipping....
Now MOD has announced that we will be making one of the carriers available to NATO.
Sea Control and things like defence of amphibious forces or logistics shipping against submarine, air, and surface threats are very much back on the agenda as much as power projection.
NATO’s ‘Readiness Initiative’ aims to improve the readiness of the alliance’s forces to deploy and move within Europe and across the Atlantic to safeguard international security. The UK will look to make its aircraft carrier a key part of those plans as the country continues to play a leading role in the alliance which has been the cornerstone of its defence for 70 years.
On that note: Qinetiq will provide a new ASW training capability:
Significantly, the new training service supports the Royal Navy’s forthcoming introduction of Queen Elizabeth Class aircraft carriers and will increase ASW training opportunities while also maximising operational deployment of the submarine fleet. Is it significant that it specifically mentions the carriers?
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 5th June 2019 at 21:28.
Joined: Oct 2018
Aviation Qualifications: PPL
Posts: 12,213
Likes: 1,648
From: Ferrara
"Is it significant that it specifically mentions the carriers?"
No - and I can't imagine the shelf life of a 65000 ASW ship in close proximity to a Russian Submarine...........
No - and I can't imagine the shelf life of a 65000 ASW ship in close proximity to a Russian Submarine...........
Joined: Nov 2018
Posts: 556
Likes: 28
From: back out to Grasse
As previously stated, an attack on a UK asset of that magnitude will mean that the world is at war, and we are all in the "end" game. Who wins the last 10 minutes is irrelevant, the UK will have retaliated.
IG
IG
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 315
Likes: 43
From: glasgow
Returning briefly to the QE captain dismissal fiasco, what if he had already been warned about the use of the vehicle for "personal" purposes? Continuing to use the vehicle as described thereafter would be an altogether more serious matter, and would make his dismissal rather more understandable, even indeed reasonable. Just a thought.
Thread Starter
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,967
Likes: 100
From: Devon
ASW is a carrier role. The carrier will provide helicopters for 24/7 dipping, working with frigates with towed array sonar. The predecessors of the Queen Elizabeth class were the Invincibles, which started life on the drawing board as through deck cruisers intended to embark up to ten ASW Sea Kings. The United Sates used to operate dedicated ASW carriers as well as attack ones, until the two roles were combined in the same ship and air wing in the seventies.
Back in the eighties, with less capable sonars aboard both ships and aircraft:
Our bread & butter was the so-called "Ripple 3"; 3 aircraft airborne all the time (2 on task, with 1 in transit to / from the scene of action) 100+ miles away from the carrier / convoy, sometimes for weeks at a time. I joined 820 NAS / Ark in late-86, and the first thing we did was a major NATO exercise escorting a convoy from Norfolk VA to Harstad in Northern Norway - we had 3 aircraft on task for over 3 weeks, non-stop. I shudder to think how many sonobuoys we "spat" in a 3000+ mile line across the Atlantic. [100+ miles away, by the way, because by then the Soviets had developed long-range missiles that they could fire from e.g. a Charlie class SSN, thus attacking the convoy without having to get all that close - [b]targeting info coming from Russian aircraft, which was one of the original reasons for procuring the Sea Harrier]. It was tiring, but possible to keep it up almost indefinitely - we had 14 crews, and 9 aircraft, so even if you had, say, 4 cabs broken at any time (not uncommon!), there were enough to keep the Ripple going. You got into a rhythm: wake up; eat; brief an hour before take off; fly for 4 hours; debrief [& file your records if you'd come across any real Soviet boats]; go to bed... 6 hours later repeat... and repeat... and repeat...
But if it's an airborne frigate, why do you need 2 on task? Because it gives you much more flexibility; for instance, one of the Soviet tactics was so-called "sprint & drift" - if it thought it had been detected (and if you flew too low they would hear you), the SSN would wind up to 30kts and shoot off 50 miles or so, and then suddenly go completely silent; slow right down and use natural salinity / temperature layers in the water to interfere with sonar. If you only had one aircraft, he would have to be incredibly unlucky for you to keep up with that - effectively his boat simply disappeared. But with two, provided you were worked up and in good practice, one of you could track the boat while it was fast (& noisy) and direct the other to fly ahead... and then swap. If they didn't know you were there, then over time it was possible to get a really accurate picture of where the boat was (all passively) - so one of you would run the plot, and use the other cab as the weapon carrier. Or, if in doubt, direct the other cab into a hover ahead of the target... ping... contact... weapon in the water within seconds before he has time to react.
At its worst, this was soul-crushingly boring. Stooging around for 4 hours at 6000'+ (nosebleed territory for helicopters) at maximum endurance speed (c.65 kts), in the dark so on instruments, spitting sonobuoys and finding... diddly squat. But when you were in contact - which was often with the real thing (e.g. on that 3 weeks crossing the Atlantic, we detected and tracked around 10 Russian SSNs [probably not 10 separate hulls, but 4 different types, so deffo not the same bloke 10 times!], since they were just as interested in watching us practice as vice versa) - it was 3-dimensional chess; it could be really exciting. Sometimes the SSN drivers would get bored, or decide to test their own tactics (we never knew), so they'd give up trying to be sneaky-beaky and stay silent, and instead try shaking us off with speed, big sudden changes in course, decoys etc. Tracking a fast nuke, in daylight, with 2 aircraft using both passive and active techniques - very, very demanding, but enormous fun.
From here.
Things have changed since then - active dipping sonar is the main ASW sensor. NATO has conducted major ASW exercises with a carrier at the centre of the task group in 2014 and 2016. NATO still depends on moving forces by sea, and having amphibious capabilities.
Back in the eighties, with less capable sonars aboard both ships and aircraft:
Our bread & butter was the so-called "Ripple 3"; 3 aircraft airborne all the time (2 on task, with 1 in transit to / from the scene of action) 100+ miles away from the carrier / convoy, sometimes for weeks at a time. I joined 820 NAS / Ark in late-86, and the first thing we did was a major NATO exercise escorting a convoy from Norfolk VA to Harstad in Northern Norway - we had 3 aircraft on task for over 3 weeks, non-stop. I shudder to think how many sonobuoys we "spat" in a 3000+ mile line across the Atlantic. [100+ miles away, by the way, because by then the Soviets had developed long-range missiles that they could fire from e.g. a Charlie class SSN, thus attacking the convoy without having to get all that close - [b]targeting info coming from Russian aircraft, which was one of the original reasons for procuring the Sea Harrier]. It was tiring, but possible to keep it up almost indefinitely - we had 14 crews, and 9 aircraft, so even if you had, say, 4 cabs broken at any time (not uncommon!), there were enough to keep the Ripple going. You got into a rhythm: wake up; eat; brief an hour before take off; fly for 4 hours; debrief [& file your records if you'd come across any real Soviet boats]; go to bed... 6 hours later repeat... and repeat... and repeat...
But if it's an airborne frigate, why do you need 2 on task? Because it gives you much more flexibility; for instance, one of the Soviet tactics was so-called "sprint & drift" - if it thought it had been detected (and if you flew too low they would hear you), the SSN would wind up to 30kts and shoot off 50 miles or so, and then suddenly go completely silent; slow right down and use natural salinity / temperature layers in the water to interfere with sonar. If you only had one aircraft, he would have to be incredibly unlucky for you to keep up with that - effectively his boat simply disappeared. But with two, provided you were worked up and in good practice, one of you could track the boat while it was fast (& noisy) and direct the other to fly ahead... and then swap. If they didn't know you were there, then over time it was possible to get a really accurate picture of where the boat was (all passively) - so one of you would run the plot, and use the other cab as the weapon carrier. Or, if in doubt, direct the other cab into a hover ahead of the target... ping... contact... weapon in the water within seconds before he has time to react.
At its worst, this was soul-crushingly boring. Stooging around for 4 hours at 6000'+ (nosebleed territory for helicopters) at maximum endurance speed (c.65 kts), in the dark so on instruments, spitting sonobuoys and finding... diddly squat. But when you were in contact - which was often with the real thing (e.g. on that 3 weeks crossing the Atlantic, we detected and tracked around 10 Russian SSNs [probably not 10 separate hulls, but 4 different types, so deffo not the same bloke 10 times!], since they were just as interested in watching us practice as vice versa) - it was 3-dimensional chess; it could be really exciting. Sometimes the SSN drivers would get bored, or decide to test their own tactics (we never knew), so they'd give up trying to be sneaky-beaky and stay silent, and instead try shaking us off with speed, big sudden changes in course, decoys etc. Tracking a fast nuke, in daylight, with 2 aircraft using both passive and active techniques - very, very demanding, but enormous fun.
From here.
Things have changed since then - active dipping sonar is the main ASW sensor. NATO has conducted major ASW exercises with a carrier at the centre of the task group in 2014 and 2016. NATO still depends on moving forces by sea, and having amphibious capabilities.
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 6th June 2019 at 14:14.
Joined: Oct 2018
Aviation Qualifications: PPL
Posts: 12,213
Likes: 1,648
From: Ferrara
Hmmm - not sure - are you sure that someone sinking a single British aircraft carrier would get the UK PM to press the button? I doubt it TBH - you aren't going to risk incinerating 65 million voters for that
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,914
Likes: 657
From: West Sussex
JTO, your excoriating post re official MT reminds me of similar blatant misuse of same. I was away defending Queen and Country in some 4 or 5 star hotel somewhere down route when Mrs C receives news from one of her brothers that their father has just died. The duty RAFP that has passed the message on is so alarmed at her distress (she was the youngest of five siblings) that he calls my boss. (all this at 0'C***** hundred am). What does she want to do? Go to Miami to meet brother and fly on to Lima (the family home). Right, get packed and I'll be there shortly (our OMQ being at Hullavington, his at Lyneham). Bundles her into his official mini and sets off at high speed across Wiltshire and Oxfordshire to a top secret airbase to catch the daily Washington VC10 (already booked compassionate for her). She remembers a large yellow flag on the car fluttering the whole way which enables him to drive straight onto the apron and to the foot of the airstairs. Quick goodbyes, ensures baggage on board, doors and hatches closed, start up, taxy out, and he's off to Lyneham having alerted Flight Commander to run the show in his absence.
More mis-use of official resources followed as he informed brother of her arrival at Washington and requested he arrange a ticket from there to Miami, and contacted BDLS Washington requesting her to be met and escorted between the two Washington airports. Resumes duties as CO only to remember me, sends signal informing me wife enroute LIM, and will meet me on arrival Lyneham. He is first onboard and looking worried. Did I get his message? Yes boss, thanks. And did he do the right thing? Well absolutely, Sir. Thank you!
Now not so sure and feel greatly relieved at this opportunity to reveal this scandal. I'm ready to give evidence, just as long as I don't get any blame for it of course...
More mis-use of official resources followed as he informed brother of her arrival at Washington and requested he arrange a ticket from there to Miami, and contacted BDLS Washington requesting her to be met and escorted between the two Washington airports. Resumes duties as CO only to remember me, sends signal informing me wife enroute LIM, and will meet me on arrival Lyneham. He is first onboard and looking worried. Did I get his message? Yes boss, thanks. And did he do the right thing? Well absolutely, Sir. Thank you!
Now not so sure and feel greatly relieved at this opportunity to reveal this scandal. I'm ready to give evidence, just as long as I don't get any blame for it of course...
Joined: Nov 2018
Posts: 556
Likes: 28
From: back out to Grasse
IG
Joined: Oct 2018
Aviation Qualifications: PPL
Posts: 12,213
Likes: 1,648
From: Ferrara
I agree that is the legal case - they are part of the UK and there would be a lot of reaction - but to use N weapons? I don't think so........
I don't think may people would see it as "a major challenge to our very existence as a nation". Now if the pesky Russians suddenly took a block booking on Eurostar and cross-channel ferry's ... maybe
You're not going to take the risk of killing 65 million people and turning the UK into a charred cinder over 1500 or so deaths I'm afraid - there'd be a lot of posturing and maybe a lot of cruise missiles fired off but, as ever, the poor bloody soldiers, sailors and airmen are likely to be sacrificed. It's the same the whole world over
You're right about First Use - from Wiki:-
In March 2002, British defence secretary Geoff Hoon stated that the UK was prepared to use nuclear weapons against "rogue states" such as Iraq if they ever used "weapons of mass destruction" against British troops in the field.[28] This policy was restated in February 2003.[29] In April 2017 Defence Secretary Michael Fallon confirmed that the UK would use nuclear weapons in a "pre-emptive initial strike" in "the most extreme circumstances".[30] Fallon stated in a parliamentary answer that the UK has neither a 'first use' or 'no first use' in its nuclear weapon policy so that its adversaries would not know when the UK would launch nuclear strikes.[3
I don't think may people would see it as "a major challenge to our very existence as a nation". Now if the pesky Russians suddenly took a block booking on Eurostar and cross-channel ferry's ... maybe
You're not going to take the risk of killing 65 million people and turning the UK into a charred cinder over 1500 or so deaths I'm afraid - there'd be a lot of posturing and maybe a lot of cruise missiles fired off but, as ever, the poor bloody soldiers, sailors and airmen are likely to be sacrificed. It's the same the whole world over
You're right about First Use - from Wiki:-
In March 2002, British defence secretary Geoff Hoon stated that the UK was prepared to use nuclear weapons against "rogue states" such as Iraq if they ever used "weapons of mass destruction" against British troops in the field.[28] This policy was restated in February 2003.[29] In April 2017 Defence Secretary Michael Fallon confirmed that the UK would use nuclear weapons in a "pre-emptive initial strike" in "the most extreme circumstances".[30] Fallon stated in a parliamentary answer that the UK has neither a 'first use' or 'no first use' in its nuclear weapon policy so that its adversaries would not know when the UK would launch nuclear strikes.[3