No nukes please, we're skittish
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Magnetogorsk
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No nukes please, we're skittish
The latest edition of Aviation Week & Space Technology (December 11 edition) has a story about the whole UK nuclear deterrent thang, discussing the background to and prospects for the probable Trident solution.
It references the nonsense option of nuclear Storm Shadow-armed A350s that was offered as a ridiculous Aunt Sally in the MoD’s future options list, but also says this about the RAF’s general attitude to taking on the role:
“Within the Royal Air Force there appeared to be little enthusiasm (at least among some senior officers) to re-enter the nuclear arena, given the cost and training implications of the role.”
Is this really a reflection of general opinion within the RAF? I understand there are implications for an overstretched force in taking back a role like this, but can the RAF really not be bothered...?
It references the nonsense option of nuclear Storm Shadow-armed A350s that was offered as a ridiculous Aunt Sally in the MoD’s future options list, but also says this about the RAF’s general attitude to taking on the role:
“Within the Royal Air Force there appeared to be little enthusiasm (at least among some senior officers) to re-enter the nuclear arena, given the cost and training implications of the role.”
Is this really a reflection of general opinion within the RAF? I understand there are implications for an overstretched force in taking back a role like this, but can the RAF really not be bothered...?
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Englandshire, mostly.
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps we could use Gordon Brown's country estate as a live range?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Why on earth would the RAF take on a part in the nuclear deterrent?
How many aircraft can deliver 48 (96 if planned for) warheads?
How many aircraft would be knocked out before delivering their payload or cruise missile?
How many aircraft can loiter undetected just off an enemies coast (or anywhere) providing a very powerful threat?
If we got to the stage of using Nukes it would be very unlikely to be against a Mickey Mouse air defense system and we can't guarantee air superiority.
The Navy has been providing a very effective deterrent and they have a very good infrastructure and process set up to deal with it.
What makes you chaps think that the RAF can do better?
The world has changed in the last 20 years beyond all comprehension, the Soviet Bear is now our friend and mutually assured destruction seems highly unlikely. But how do we know that in 20 years we won’t be facing another cold war.
Who knows, we may even decide to nuke the French for sh*ts and giggles.
How many aircraft can deliver 48 (96 if planned for) warheads?
How many aircraft would be knocked out before delivering their payload or cruise missile?
How many aircraft can loiter undetected just off an enemies coast (or anywhere) providing a very powerful threat?
If we got to the stage of using Nukes it would be very unlikely to be against a Mickey Mouse air defense system and we can't guarantee air superiority.
The Navy has been providing a very effective deterrent and they have a very good infrastructure and process set up to deal with it.
What makes you chaps think that the RAF can do better?
The world has changed in the last 20 years beyond all comprehension, the Soviet Bear is now our friend and mutually assured destruction seems highly unlikely. But how do we know that in 20 years we won’t be facing another cold war.
Who knows, we may even decide to nuke the French for sh*ts and giggles.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Oxfordshire
Age: 54
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have it back? Sod that! The RN do a bloody good job of sneaking round the world with big sticks, and I can't see any point in changing the way the system currently works.
Big respect to the blokes who spend all that time underwater for our National security, rather them than me!
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...
Big respect to the blokes who spend all that time underwater for our National security, rather them than me!
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...
Just before the "Vulcan" oldboys get started I'll add my 2p worth. The RAF no longer have an organisation that supplies, maintains, operates Nuclear Weaponry. They are either all dead or retired.
To re-establish an airborne Nuclear Deterrant would require a massive infrastructure programme to upgrade HAS sites, Bunkers, Armouries and all the associated links. Then they will need to train hundreds of engineers, armourers and aircrew to supply, maintain and operate said equipment. That is before tactics are introduced and training starts, followed by the ability to maintain that on-call force 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.
Even without the argument about survivability, any reversion to the 1960s policy would be hideously expensive and suck valuable resources and cash away from where it is really needed, in Transport, SH, Conventional Strike and ISTAR.
So stop living in the past. It will never happen. The deterrant is in the best place, and maintained and operated by an organisation that already exists. Any extension to Trident's life will be cheap in comparison.
Have a good XMAS.
To re-establish an airborne Nuclear Deterrant would require a massive infrastructure programme to upgrade HAS sites, Bunkers, Armouries and all the associated links. Then they will need to train hundreds of engineers, armourers and aircrew to supply, maintain and operate said equipment. That is before tactics are introduced and training starts, followed by the ability to maintain that on-call force 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.
Even without the argument about survivability, any reversion to the 1960s policy would be hideously expensive and suck valuable resources and cash away from where it is really needed, in Transport, SH, Conventional Strike and ISTAR.
So stop living in the past. It will never happen. The deterrant is in the best place, and maintained and operated by an organisation that already exists. Any extension to Trident's life will be cheap in comparison.
Have a good XMAS.
Last edited by Widger; 13th Dec 2006 at 14:31. Reason: Because my spillong is atri..atrocioo....atroc..awful
TAC Int Bloke
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Party pooper Widger! Think of all the investment generated, the benefits to the construction industry, BWOS (you didn’t think we were going to buy foreign did you?), the secondary rejuvenation of the local economies, think of the massive increase of service personnel, promotions, postings, the knock on effect for the civilian market of a well trained pool of sparkies, sooties avionics, IT and Admin chaps and chapesses . Bring forth the TSR3s!
AND DID THOSE FEET IN ANCIENT TIMES..........
(See “Ministry of Space” for how it should have been)
AND DID THOSE FEET IN ANCIENT TIMES..........
(See “Ministry of Space” for how it should have been)
"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..."
Surely it's easier to sink than fly?
I'll get me coat
Surely it's easier to sink than fly?
I'll get me coat
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
I´ve got the history of the RAF deterrent back at home. IIRC the total staff established to plan the V-force introduction to service including all engineering and flying training and all engineering, security and logistic support was along the lines of a Wg Cdr, 6 Sqn Ldrs and a similar number of WO/Flt Sgts.
I wonder how many people it would need today.......
I wonder how many people it would need today.......
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Brick, BTW, what does the USAF have now that SAC has gone? Is it just missiles?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Aren't there still some Flying Bananas kicking about? Put them on one of the new ships, re-invent the WE177B (OK it isn't exactly the mother of all nukes but...) and Bob is your mother's 'best friend'.
On the other hand........................
On the other hand........................
Guest
Posts: n/a
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
CRS Report for Congress:
B-2 Bomber.
The Air Force has 21 B-2 bombers, based at Whiteman AFB in Missouri. The B-2 bomber can carry both B-61 and B-83 nuclear bombs, but is not equipped to carry cruise missiles. It can also carry conventional weapons, and has participated in U.S. military campaigns from Bosnia to Iraq. It is designed as a “low observable”aircraft, and was intended to improve the U.S. ability to penetrate Soviet air defenses.
Weapons.
According to unclassified estimates, the United States has around 550 B-61 and B-83 bombs.The B61-11, a modification developed in the 1990s,has a hardened, modified case so that it can penetrate some hardened targets, although probably not those encased in steel and concrete. The B-83 bomb is a high yield weapon, that is also designed to destroy hardened targets, such as ICBM silos.
B-52 Bomber.
The Air Force currently maintains 94 B-52H aircraft at two bases, Barksdale, Louisiana and Minot, North Dakota. The B-52 bomber, which first entered service in 1961, is equipped to carry nuclear or conventional air-launched cruise missiles and nuclear-armed advanced cruise missiles......
The House, in its version of the FY2007 Defense Authorization Bill, prohibited the Air Force from retiring any of the B-52 aircraft, and mandated that it maintain at least 44 “combat coded” aircraft until the Air Force began to replace the B-52 with a new bomber of equal or greater capability.....
There are some indications that, during the discussions on the QDR, some in the Pentagon argued that the all the B-52 bombers should be removed from the nuclear role. According to S.Rept. 109-274, Energy and Water Appropriations Bill 2007, the Nuclear Weapons Council and Department of Defense no longer support the W80 Life Extension activities. As a result, both the House (H.R. 5427) and Senate Appropriations Bills eliminate funding for this effort.....
Weapons.
The B-52 bomber is equipped to carry both the Air-Launched cruise missile (ALCM) and Advanced Cruise Missile (ACM). The ACM reportedly has a modified design with a lower radar cross-section, making it more “stealthy” than the ALCM. According to Air Force figures, the United States currently has 1,142 ALCMs and 460 ACMs.
Although these weapons represent a majority of the weapons that U.S. bombers could carry on nuclear missions, the Department of Defense is reportedly pursuing a study of the future role of these missiles in the U.S.force mix. With the growing interest in conventional strike capabilities, there maybe a declining interest in maintaining the force of nuclear-armed cruise missiles.
Both the ALCM and ACM are currently undergoing life-extension programs so that they can remain in service through 2030. Both cruise missiles also carry the W-80 warhead, which was scheduled to for a life-extension program. However, the Department of Defense has recently indicated that it no longer plans to support the W-80 refurbishment program, raising further questions about the future role of nuclear-armed cruise missiles in the U.S. arsenal.
Under the START II Treaty, the United States would have had to count the total number of nuclear weapons the B-2 and B-52 bombers were equipped to carry under its allocation of permitted warheads. These warheads would have counted even if the bombers were equipped to perform conventional missions, unless the bombers were altered so that they could no longer carry nuclear weapons.
Under the Moscow Treaty, however, the United States will only count as “operationally deployed” those nuclear weapons stored at bomber bases, excluding a small number of spare warheads. It does not intend to alter any bombers so that they cannot carry nuclear weapons. Consequently, the number of bomber weapons could decrease in the future, even without changes to the numbers of deployed bombers, as the United States retires weapons or removes them from storage areas at Minot, Barksdale, and Whiteman Air Force Bases.
Future Bomber Plans.
The Air Force has begun toplan for the developmentof a new strategic bomber, with its possible introduction into the fleet in around 2018. According to Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne, the service is seeking a bomber with not only stealth capabilities and long range, but also one that can “stay airborne and on call for very long periods.”
The start of the study on a new bomber, known as an Analysis of Alternatives (AOA) has been delayed in recent months bya dispute over whether the study should stand alone or be merged with another AOA on prompt global strike (PGS). While a future bomber could be a part of the PGS mission, other systems, such as hypersonic technologies and missiles, would also be a part of the effort to strike anywhere around the world at long range.
General Cartwright of STRATCOM has reportedly supported a plan to merge the two efforts, so that the considerations of capabilities for a new bomber would be measured along side other systems, both to balance the force and avoid redundancy across the force. On the other hand, the Air Force Chief of Staff, General T. Michael Moseley, reportedly preferred to keep the two studies separate. He has argued that a bomber with long-range strike capabilities must have “persistent, survivable, and penetrating capabilities” while a platform with PGS capabilities could be “standoff weapon that is very, very fast.” This position reportedly prevailed, with the Air Force deciding, in May 2006, to keep the two studies separate.
This dispute reveals wide-ranging differences, within the Air Force and Pentagon, about the goals for and capabilities that should be sought in a new bomber program. The dispute focuses, however, on conventional capabilities; it seems to be almost a foregone conclusion that nuclear capabilities, or the need for a bomber leg of the nuclear triad, will not drive the discussion or analysis................
B-2 Bomber.
The Air Force has 21 B-2 bombers, based at Whiteman AFB in Missouri. The B-2 bomber can carry both B-61 and B-83 nuclear bombs, but is not equipped to carry cruise missiles. It can also carry conventional weapons, and has participated in U.S. military campaigns from Bosnia to Iraq. It is designed as a “low observable”aircraft, and was intended to improve the U.S. ability to penetrate Soviet air defenses.
Weapons.
According to unclassified estimates, the United States has around 550 B-61 and B-83 bombs.The B61-11, a modification developed in the 1990s,has a hardened, modified case so that it can penetrate some hardened targets, although probably not those encased in steel and concrete. The B-83 bomb is a high yield weapon, that is also designed to destroy hardened targets, such as ICBM silos.
B-52 Bomber.
The Air Force currently maintains 94 B-52H aircraft at two bases, Barksdale, Louisiana and Minot, North Dakota. The B-52 bomber, which first entered service in 1961, is equipped to carry nuclear or conventional air-launched cruise missiles and nuclear-armed advanced cruise missiles......
The House, in its version of the FY2007 Defense Authorization Bill, prohibited the Air Force from retiring any of the B-52 aircraft, and mandated that it maintain at least 44 “combat coded” aircraft until the Air Force began to replace the B-52 with a new bomber of equal or greater capability.....
There are some indications that, during the discussions on the QDR, some in the Pentagon argued that the all the B-52 bombers should be removed from the nuclear role. According to S.Rept. 109-274, Energy and Water Appropriations Bill 2007, the Nuclear Weapons Council and Department of Defense no longer support the W80 Life Extension activities. As a result, both the House (H.R. 5427) and Senate Appropriations Bills eliminate funding for this effort.....
Weapons.
The B-52 bomber is equipped to carry both the Air-Launched cruise missile (ALCM) and Advanced Cruise Missile (ACM). The ACM reportedly has a modified design with a lower radar cross-section, making it more “stealthy” than the ALCM. According to Air Force figures, the United States currently has 1,142 ALCMs and 460 ACMs.
Although these weapons represent a majority of the weapons that U.S. bombers could carry on nuclear missions, the Department of Defense is reportedly pursuing a study of the future role of these missiles in the U.S.force mix. With the growing interest in conventional strike capabilities, there maybe a declining interest in maintaining the force of nuclear-armed cruise missiles.
Both the ALCM and ACM are currently undergoing life-extension programs so that they can remain in service through 2030. Both cruise missiles also carry the W-80 warhead, which was scheduled to for a life-extension program. However, the Department of Defense has recently indicated that it no longer plans to support the W-80 refurbishment program, raising further questions about the future role of nuclear-armed cruise missiles in the U.S. arsenal.
Under the START II Treaty, the United States would have had to count the total number of nuclear weapons the B-2 and B-52 bombers were equipped to carry under its allocation of permitted warheads. These warheads would have counted even if the bombers were equipped to perform conventional missions, unless the bombers were altered so that they could no longer carry nuclear weapons.
Under the Moscow Treaty, however, the United States will only count as “operationally deployed” those nuclear weapons stored at bomber bases, excluding a small number of spare warheads. It does not intend to alter any bombers so that they cannot carry nuclear weapons. Consequently, the number of bomber weapons could decrease in the future, even without changes to the numbers of deployed bombers, as the United States retires weapons or removes them from storage areas at Minot, Barksdale, and Whiteman Air Force Bases.
Future Bomber Plans.
The Air Force has begun toplan for the developmentof a new strategic bomber, with its possible introduction into the fleet in around 2018. According to Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne, the service is seeking a bomber with not only stealth capabilities and long range, but also one that can “stay airborne and on call for very long periods.”
The start of the study on a new bomber, known as an Analysis of Alternatives (AOA) has been delayed in recent months bya dispute over whether the study should stand alone or be merged with another AOA on prompt global strike (PGS). While a future bomber could be a part of the PGS mission, other systems, such as hypersonic technologies and missiles, would also be a part of the effort to strike anywhere around the world at long range.
General Cartwright of STRATCOM has reportedly supported a plan to merge the two efforts, so that the considerations of capabilities for a new bomber would be measured along side other systems, both to balance the force and avoid redundancy across the force. On the other hand, the Air Force Chief of Staff, General T. Michael Moseley, reportedly preferred to keep the two studies separate. He has argued that a bomber with long-range strike capabilities must have “persistent, survivable, and penetrating capabilities” while a platform with PGS capabilities could be “standoff weapon that is very, very fast.” This position reportedly prevailed, with the Air Force deciding, in May 2006, to keep the two studies separate.
This dispute reveals wide-ranging differences, within the Air Force and Pentagon, about the goals for and capabilities that should be sought in a new bomber program. The dispute focuses, however, on conventional capabilities; it seems to be almost a foregone conclusion that nuclear capabilities, or the need for a bomber leg of the nuclear triad, will not drive the discussion or analysis................
Last edited by ORAC; 13th Dec 2006 at 17:26.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Close to the Arctic Circle
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“Within the Royal Air Force there appeared to be little enthusiasm (at least among some senior officers) to re-enter the nuclear arena, given the cost and training implications of the role.”
After the justifiable hiding that their Airships have taken in this arena over the past few weeks, it makes a refreshing change to see hints that they may, after all, have the sense they are paid to employ.
To be frank (and I'm not Frank, that's another story), if giving us back the keys to Bucket of Sunshine Club is the answer, it must be a very silly question!
After the justifiable hiding that their Airships have taken in this arena over the past few weeks, it makes a refreshing change to see hints that they may, after all, have the sense they are paid to employ.
To be frank (and I'm not Frank, that's another story), if giving us back the keys to Bucket of Sunshine Club is the answer, it must be a very silly question!
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Trumpville; On the edge
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Oi! You lot mention the 'N - word' again..
...an' I'll set me dog on yer!"
http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d1...0-1065_IMG.jpg
(I'm sure there's a caption competition in there somewhere too.. e.g. how many retarded items can you see?)
http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d1...0-1065_IMG.jpg
(I'm sure there's a caption competition in there somewhere too.. e.g. how many retarded items can you see?)
Last edited by Trumpet_trousers; 13th Dec 2006 at 21:21. Reason: caption competition contender
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
...They are either all dead or retired
I don't draw my deferred pension until next year and I'm still gainfully employed in aviation. ...and I'll have you know, one of my fellow apprentices has a nice little number at Aldermarston, filling buckets of sunshine for the matelots.
I don't think that manned aeroplanes are the answer, nor Trident missiles. The right answer is lots of cruise missiles with smaller but more numerous warheads and smaller, simpler submarines to carry them. You can make them nuclear, chemical or biological - or even HE. And you have the option of firing them not only from under the sea, but also from on top of the sea, from an aeroplane or even from the back of a lorry. All the nasty little b*st*rds around the world are within range of a strike from any direction. Use a neutron bomb and you even get to carry on using the oilfields afterwards.
Then there's the nuclear artillery shell. A WMD that's Ideal for dealing with nuclear bomb waving dictators. Not Weapons of Mass Destruction per se, merely Weapons of Middling Destruction.
My favourite nuclear age photo shows a 105 mm gun firing a 0.5 kiloton battlefield nuke at a squadron (is that the right description?) of 50 tanks in formation. Airburst at 500 feet. When the smoke clears the only thing visible is a camera-carrying barrage balloon, crashed on its nose just in front of the gun. Of the tanks there is no sign at all.