Newsnight report on WE.177/P.A.L's
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Newsnight report on WE.177/P.A.L's
Anyone got any comments, apart from the fact they haven't been in the inventory for 9 years?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programme...ht/7097101.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programme...ht/7097101.stm
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Over there, behind that tree.
Posts: 581
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The liberalists in the Beeb probably think they've been too soft on the armed forces lately and have dredged up an approx 43 year old non-story to make them look like they are still intrepid investigative journalists. 
Interestingly, (and again), no mention of the nuke Canberras of RAF Germany. I wonder if, apart from those of us who were on them, anybody actually knew about them?
.
Interestingly, (and again), no mention of the nuke Canberras of RAF Germany. I wonder if, apart from those of us who were on them, anybody actually knew about them?
.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You just wait until the beeb gets a hold of the story about a USAF launch officer missing a rated countdown drill on Thor, so (allegedly) the RAF LCO simply used a screwdriver in lieu of the American key... Oops, that'll be on Newsnight on the next slack news day!
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Southern UK
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I saw this last night and was beside myself. The techincal advice seemed to have come exclusively from Hollywood films, and the only 'expert' was the chair of CND. Surely the MoD could have put someone on to point out that:
a. There were numerous checks (and codes!) in the process of launching a nuclear-armed aircraft - and the guards weren't just there to keep spetsnatz out, they had orders to shoot the crew if they got to a certain point without the right authentication.
b. It's pretty irrelevant to discuss WE177 anyway, as we don't use them any more.
c. The US incident was nowhere near as serious as it was made out on the programme - if you believed that, it was like they left a B-52 in an unguarded layby while they went home for the weekend.
d. You can't run a credible deterrent if it can be neutralised with one bomb on Westminster.
a. There were numerous checks (and codes!) in the process of launching a nuclear-armed aircraft - and the guards weren't just there to keep spetsnatz out, they had orders to shoot the crew if they got to a certain point without the right authentication.
b. It's pretty irrelevant to discuss WE177 anyway, as we don't use them any more.
c. The US incident was nowhere near as serious as it was made out on the programme - if you believed that, it was like they left a B-52 in an unguarded layby while they went home for the weekend.
d. You can't run a credible deterrent if it can be neutralised with one bomb on Westminster.
Last edited by Occasional Aviator; 16th Nov 2007 at 08:31. Reason: meddling about
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Colditz young offenders centre
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
prruners might enjoy posting their comments to the Newsnight blog
page, if the Beeb can keep their technology working...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight...commentsanchor
page, if the Beeb can keep their technology working...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight...commentsanchor
The Royal Navy argued that officers of the Royal Navy as the Senior Service could be trusted:
"It would be invidious to suggest... that Senior Service officers may, in difficult circumstances, act in defiance of their clear orders".
"It would be invidious to suggest... that Senior Service officers may, in difficult circumstances, act in defiance of their clear orders".
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
The report, as per the link, is strictly accurate - as far as it goes.
It does not mention that PAL was not an airborne system either. The code was loaded by the crew, sitting in the cockpit, when it was issued. I don't recall the Nimrod having PAL.
The WE177 crew would be unable to launch without a release because the gates would remain shut!
Interesting it did not mention the Jaguar pilots who had sole authority, once the gates were open.
It does not mention that PAL was not an airborne system either. The code was loaded by the crew, sitting in the cockpit, when it was issued. I don't recall the Nimrod having PAL.
The WE177 crew would be unable to launch without a release because the gates would remain shut!
Interesting it did not mention the Jaguar pilots who had sole authority, once the gates were open.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: london
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pontius, are those actual gates i.e. impediment to forward movement, that you refer to? I heard from 814 tasked Police that in the case of 'rogue' Jag pilot they were to shoot out front tyre to prevent ac taking off. In other ac the 2 man principle was supposed to suffice.
Oh and Beardy, those keys were come by legitimately.
Oh and Beardy, those keys were come by legitimately.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Greycoat, part and part. K3k3 - pre-HAS.
QRA aircraft in the Q pens had gates on wheels. The V-force did not. In the FOA arming would obviously take place when tensions were higher and shooting wheels would have been an option.
A single word amendment to the 814, in 1978 or thereabouts, changed that and we had gates and fencing at ISK for the Nimrod too.
Obviously HAS improved security all round.
QRA aircraft in the Q pens had gates on wheels. The V-force did not. In the FOA arming would obviously take place when tensions were higher and shooting wheels would have been an option.
A single word amendment to the 814, in 1978 or thereabouts, changed that and we had gates and fencing at ISK for the Nimrod too.
Obviously HAS improved security all round.
More bang for your buck
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 82
Posts: 3,512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Typical Beeb is the use of the term "bicycle lock key" instead of saying that they are highly secure lock systems with over a million key combinations and are virtually unpickable. 
Besides it must have been a perfectly satisfactory system because no-one dropped one live anywhere to start a war, did they.
Besides it must have been a perfectly satisfactory system because no-one dropped one live anywhere to start a war, did they.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Typical Beeb is the use of the term "bicycle lock key" instead of saying that they are highly secure lock systems with over a million key combinations and are virtually unpickable.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Typical Beeb is the use of the term "bicycle lock key" instead of saying that they are highly secure lock systems with over a million key combinations and are virtually unpickable.
Besides it must have been a perfectly satisfactory system because no-one dropped one live anywhere to start a war, did they.
Besides it must have been a perfectly satisfactory system because no-one dropped one live anywhere to start a war, did they.
More bang for your buck
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 82
Posts: 3,512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What do you expect from cheepo, made in China type stuff.
Try doing that to a properly engineered barrel lock such as the ones fitted to fruit M/Cs in pubs, you will find it doesn't work with those
Try doing that to a properly engineered barrel lock such as the ones fitted to fruit M/Cs in pubs, you will find it doesn't work with those
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Roland, as we never practised with the owners I am not entirely sure what would have happened. AFAIR the Mk 1 would have had the weapons enabled at some point but this was not a crew procedure. In otherwords it was fit and forget.
The Mk 2 was fitted with a SWEC3 (?) and that might have incorporated the SEP to which you refered. It was 'safer' (?) but took longer to operate which was not a good feature during the attack.
The Mk 2 was fitted with a SWEC3 (?) and that might have incorporated the SEP to which you refered. It was 'safer' (?) but took longer to operate which was not a good feature during the attack.
Tony,
I would suggest that nothing has been posted on this thread that is not already in the public domain. A reasonable starting point could be found here:
Principles of Nuclear Weapon Safety
I even know someone who keeps a weapon control panel on his study desk!!
No, it's not me!
YS
I would suggest that nothing has been posted on this thread that is not already in the public domain. A reasonable starting point could be found here:
Principles of Nuclear Weapon Safety
I even know someone who keeps a weapon control panel on his study desk!!
No, it's not me!
YS