No nukes please, we're skittish
I believe its the Davy Crockett you speak of. I remember reading once that its minimum engagement distance is 1000 feet. That's not a helluva lot. Next time your rolling out on a runway, note the distance remaining boards. Imagine being at the 5 board and lobbing a nuke at the bad guys at the 4 board.
http://www.atomicmuseum.com/tour/cw3.cfm
http://www.atomicmuseum.com/tour/cw3.cfm
Quote:
...They are either all dead or retired
No we're not!
...They are either all dead or retired
No we're not!
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: All Bar One
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just This Once your post made me chuckle - similar memories myself. I don't miss WST at all. Was quite funny walking the Q compound looking for a 'key' misplaced by my nose gunner while he was out with his wedge practising his golf chip shot though.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I don't see how mounting Nukes on a cruise is the answer.
1 MIRV per cruise.
8 Cruise per Sub?
Compared to 48-96 MIRV per Vangaurd.
So each Vanguard would be replaced by 6 - 12 attack subs carrying torps and cruise?
Also Vanguards are a damn site more difficult to detect and destroy than a frigate or aircraft or aircraft hangers.
1 MIRV per cruise.
8 Cruise per Sub?
Compared to 48-96 MIRV per Vangaurd.
So each Vanguard would be replaced by 6 - 12 attack subs carrying torps and cruise?
Also Vanguards are a damn site more difficult to detect and destroy than a frigate or aircraft or aircraft hangers.
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
Also Vanguards are a damn site more difficult to detect and destroy than a frigate or aircraft or aircraft hangers.
The world has changed in the meantime and the threat is now from rogue states whose actions are quite unpredictable. The message is, use just one nuclear weapon on anyone, anywhere, anytime and its goodbye to your entire military capability. Smaller weapons, greater spread, battlefield capable, for taking out armies without the need for close up ground combat.
Though that Davy Crockett thing might be a bit too close for comfort...
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: All Bar One
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JTO - well I hesitated, very briefly, but overcame the desire to hit delete. I figured that there was nothing classified in mentioning the Q compound or my pilot losing his <ahem> car key 
Probably not a good idea to start a 'when I was on Q' thread though ....
Probably not a good idea to start a 'when I was on Q' thread though ....
Guest
Posts: n/a
MIRVS can be targeted for different locations. Each Trident can hit 8-12 different targets. One Missile could take out an enemies air capability in one go.
And prepping for the next war? As you say in 20 years we have gone from all out mutual annihilation against Russia to rogue states and an axis of evil. What happens if we get rid of the big bang stuff and arm up with Tactical Nukes and then in 20 years time we are suddenly faced with a resurgence of the USSR or China decides that it has had enough etc etc.
Trident style weapons can do everything a cruise can do and it can also wipe out life on earth....which is nice
And prepping for the next war? As you say in 20 years we have gone from all out mutual annihilation against Russia to rogue states and an axis of evil. What happens if we get rid of the big bang stuff and arm up with Tactical Nukes and then in 20 years time we are suddenly faced with a resurgence of the USSR or China decides that it has had enough etc etc.
Trident style weapons can do everything a cruise can do and it can also wipe out life on earth....which is nice
I would pity anyone having to go through 'specials' cert training,I know I loathed it! Surely there are still some remaining in the RAF with 'bucket of sunshine' training & as the last WE177's were only phased out in 1998 there must be tens of suppliers with some in their shed
"I would pity anyone having to go through 'specials' cert training,I know I loathed it! "
Not forgetting the need to do 100 day checks that seemed to take - well 100 days when the test gear or system went wrong (most of the time) - pleaaase!
Not forgetting the need to do 100 day checks that seemed to take - well 100 days when the test gear or system went wrong (most of the time) - pleaaase!
Join Date: May 2005
Location: london
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"I suppose it will be cheaper to have a plane sat in a hangar waiting to launch a Nuke than it is to keep a sub underwater..."
Quite the reverse, according to MOD! see link, and passage pasted below from the recent Govt White Paper, explaining how the deterrent could be given back to aviators? A fleet of converted airliners!
Forget it, basically.
The analysts conclude it would be the worst and most expensive of four options (New submarines;Tridents fired from surface ships; land-based silos; air launched stand-off missiles).
I have to say the whole thing reads to me rather as though the authors had their answer in advance. Surely there are more viable air-launched options than this? All academic, as subs are the chosen way forward, and probably rightly so.
For link, see p35 of:
http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/AC00D...006_Cm6994.pdf
----------------
Option 1:
A long-range aircraft equipped with cruise missiles
Platform:
• 20 large converted civil aircraft plus 20 refuelling aircraft
• Range (with refuelling) in excess of 20,000km
• Capacity to carry four large cruise missiles
Delivery system:
• Subsonic cruise missile (new development or off-the-shelf purchase)
• Range up to 3,000 km
• New nuclear warhead
Infrastructure and Support:
• Two large main operating bases (one new, one a modified existing base)
• New nuclear storage facilities and command and control system
• Extensive new training burden
Operational Posture:
• Impracticable to sustain continuous airborne deterrent patrols
• Aircraft normally retained at high alert on the ground
B-6 Assessment: The combination of a long-range aircraft armed with
cruise missiles suffers from several major drawbacks. The whole system would
be vulnerable particularly to preemptive attacks: whilst on the ground, to
conventional and nuclear missile threats, and to terrorist attacks, and once airborne, to surface-to-air and air-to-air missiles.
Similar concerns would also apply to the airborne refuelling tankers, which would be essential if the aircraft were to be able to meet the requirement to be able to deter threats anywhere in the world.
Cruise missiles are also significantly more vulnerable to being intercepted than
ballistic missiles because they fly at much lower speed and altitude.
B-7 Even with a fleet of 20 large aircraft, we would also face a major challenge in terms of guaranteeing a sufficient capability to establish an effective deterrence posture. Also we had concerns about meeting readiness requirements: measures to increase the readiness of aircraft on the ground would be visible and therefore potentially escalatory in a crisis.
B-8 Finally, in terms of costs, assuming a fleet of 20 aircraft, this option was the most expensive of the four generic options, with through-life costs more than double those of a submarine option, the main cost drivers being procurement of the new aircraft and delivery system and the extensive new
infrastructure requirements. Overall, this was the most expensive and by some distance the least capable option.
Quite the reverse, according to MOD! see link, and passage pasted below from the recent Govt White Paper, explaining how the deterrent could be given back to aviators? A fleet of converted airliners!
Forget it, basically.
The analysts conclude it would be the worst and most expensive of four options (New submarines;Tridents fired from surface ships; land-based silos; air launched stand-off missiles).
I have to say the whole thing reads to me rather as though the authors had their answer in advance. Surely there are more viable air-launched options than this? All academic, as subs are the chosen way forward, and probably rightly so.
For link, see p35 of:
http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/AC00D...006_Cm6994.pdf
----------------
Option 1:
A long-range aircraft equipped with cruise missiles
Platform:
• 20 large converted civil aircraft plus 20 refuelling aircraft
• Range (with refuelling) in excess of 20,000km
• Capacity to carry four large cruise missiles
Delivery system:
• Subsonic cruise missile (new development or off-the-shelf purchase)
• Range up to 3,000 km
• New nuclear warhead
Infrastructure and Support:
• Two large main operating bases (one new, one a modified existing base)
• New nuclear storage facilities and command and control system
• Extensive new training burden
Operational Posture:
• Impracticable to sustain continuous airborne deterrent patrols
• Aircraft normally retained at high alert on the ground
B-6 Assessment: The combination of a long-range aircraft armed with
cruise missiles suffers from several major drawbacks. The whole system would
be vulnerable particularly to preemptive attacks: whilst on the ground, to
conventional and nuclear missile threats, and to terrorist attacks, and once airborne, to surface-to-air and air-to-air missiles.
Similar concerns would also apply to the airborne refuelling tankers, which would be essential if the aircraft were to be able to meet the requirement to be able to deter threats anywhere in the world.
Cruise missiles are also significantly more vulnerable to being intercepted than
ballistic missiles because they fly at much lower speed and altitude.
B-7 Even with a fleet of 20 large aircraft, we would also face a major challenge in terms of guaranteeing a sufficient capability to establish an effective deterrence posture. Also we had concerns about meeting readiness requirements: measures to increase the readiness of aircraft on the ground would be visible and therefore potentially escalatory in a crisis.
B-8 Finally, in terms of costs, assuming a fleet of 20 aircraft, this option was the most expensive of the four generic options, with through-life costs more than double those of a submarine option, the main cost drivers being procurement of the new aircraft and delivery system and the extensive new
infrastructure requirements. Overall, this was the most expensive and by some distance the least capable option.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
