2 days worth of Missiles
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Devon, England
Posts: 816
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2 days worth of Missiles
Noticed a snippit on BBC News this morning about some declassified top secret papers from when Callaghan was PM.
It was stated we only had enough missiles to last 2 days for the Phantoms and other aircraft needed to fend off the waves of Russian aircraft inbound to the UK.
Also the papers are now running it:-
Heaven help us! What Prime Minister Jim Callaghan said when he discovered Britain only had two days of ammunition to fight the Russians | Mail Online
Surely however, within the first few days of the war (if unconventional) the UK wouldn't have lasted 2 days anyway?
It was stated we only had enough missiles to last 2 days for the Phantoms and other aircraft needed to fend off the waves of Russian aircraft inbound to the UK.
Also the papers are now running it:-
Heaven help us! What Prime Minister Jim Callaghan said when he discovered Britain only had two days of ammunition to fight the Russians | Mail Online
Surely however, within the first few days of the war (if unconventional) the UK wouldn't have lasted 2 days anyway?
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Then we was more of an ignorant fool than I thought him to be.
This was the legacy of "Tripwire" where 11Gp only had to perform air policing and hold the line till the V-force flushed. Once Tripwire was replaced by "Flexible Response" it was still anticipated that we only had to hold till the Russians reached the Channel when it would go nuclear anyway.
The RAF was based around the 3 day war in concept and in practice. Taceval was always 3 days - Day 1 transition to war, Day 2 conventional war, Day 3 survival scramble and shelter posture, Endex. No dedicated guard force because it was supplied by Admin etc as we could operate without these for 3 days; only enough crews and missiles for the same period etc.
The fli side was that whilst the Russians theoretically had the aircraft to attack the UK around North Cape their role for the Badgers and Backfires was tactical and based on use in the Central Region and the Bears would have been Carrier Battle Group hunting.
As the wry joke went at the time - they pretended they were a threat and we pretended to defend against them.........
This was the legacy of "Tripwire" where 11Gp only had to perform air policing and hold the line till the V-force flushed. Once Tripwire was replaced by "Flexible Response" it was still anticipated that we only had to hold till the Russians reached the Channel when it would go nuclear anyway.
The RAF was based around the 3 day war in concept and in practice. Taceval was always 3 days - Day 1 transition to war, Day 2 conventional war, Day 3 survival scramble and shelter posture, Endex. No dedicated guard force because it was supplied by Admin etc as we could operate without these for 3 days; only enough crews and missiles for the same period etc.
The fli side was that whilst the Russians theoretically had the aircraft to attack the UK around North Cape their role for the Badgers and Backfires was tactical and based on use in the Central Region and the Bears would have been Carrier Battle Group hunting.
As the wry joke went at the time - they pretended they were a threat and we pretended to defend against them.........
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Russians reached the Channel
I always thought the River Rheine was the line for holiday sunshine for if BAOR & RAFG were deleted there was nobody left to play. The mind game being that eastern troops would witness western quality of life and wonder why they were fighting at all. Having seen some eastern quality of life recently there is some integrity in this theory.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
The concept was weapon/target matching.
If you had, say, 60 F4 available and each had 8 missiles that was 480 missiles.
If each kill was assumed to require 2 missiles then each aircraft could take out 4 targets. There would be some attrition but that meant that the spare ship-set for aircraft one could be shared with aircraft 2 and 3 etc.
If the enemy was assumed to have only 200 aircraft to attack the Uk then it would follow that we had enough weapons.
A similar issue was used for the Nimrod. UK ASW Force had 38 Nimron initially and only 300 torpedos - 200 x Mk 44 and 100 x Mk 30 = 50 ship sets. Same logic.
The V-Force had one WE177 each (approximately)
If you had, say, 60 F4 available and each had 8 missiles that was 480 missiles.
If each kill was assumed to require 2 missiles then each aircraft could take out 4 targets. There would be some attrition but that meant that the spare ship-set for aircraft one could be shared with aircraft 2 and 3 etc.
If the enemy was assumed to have only 200 aircraft to attack the Uk then it would follow that we had enough weapons.
A similar issue was used for the Nimrod. UK ASW Force had 38 Nimron initially and only 300 torpedos - 200 x Mk 44 and 100 x Mk 30 = 50 ship sets. Same logic.
The V-Force had one WE177 each (approximately)
Not that much of a story, as I know that the Bloodhound Force at the time had only enough reload stocks to allow each launcher to fire 2 missiles before all of the missiles were gone, plus of course back then most of the force was in West Germany.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
When did we buy back the Swedish and Swiss missiles?
Certainly the armed forces as a whole were not set up for attritional warfare. I think the same low stock levels applied to everything, even 9mm ammunition for pistols and SMG. Certainly no combat kit for the RAF. During tacevals it was always a come as you are party and wear a noddy suit until you were posted and handed it on or it fell to bits. In 1981 I bought my own gucci ones for taceval through exchange and mart. Mine were Mk 3 when the rest were slumming in Mk 1/2. When challenged I said officers always bought their own uniform
Certainly the armed forces as a whole were not set up for attritional warfare. I think the same low stock levels applied to everything, even 9mm ammunition for pistols and SMG. Certainly no combat kit for the RAF. During tacevals it was always a come as you are party and wear a noddy suit until you were posted and handed it on or it fell to bits. In 1981 I bought my own gucci ones for taceval through exchange and mart. Mine were Mk 3 when the rest were slumming in Mk 1/2. When challenged I said officers always bought their own uniform
Didn't buy them back from the Swiss. Swedish AF got 116 missiles back in 1965-6. They fired 10 in trials/troop firings, kept 6 or 7 as gate guards and the rest we got our hands on in the late 1970's, along with 9 of the 'Firelight' (Type 86) radars a bit later. In 74, the majority of the force was overseas in West Germany and Cyprus (25 and 112 Sqn's). There was only one Bloodhound missile section in the UK that could be used operationally between 1974 and 1976, and that was the trials and proving section of the Bloodhound Support Unit at West Raynham, which could be placed in the 11 Group order of battle in time of war (the unit's primary role was support of 25 Sqn in West Germany). 76 to 79 saw the force build back up in the UK when 85 Sqn stood up in Dec 75 from the rump of the BHSU, equipment returned Cyprus when 112 were canned and equipment out of storage that had been removed from Butterworth in 1970. Half of the kit from Seletar was sold to the Singapore AF, while the rest (mobile T86 sections) made up part of the kit that 25 Sqn had in Germany.
RAF Bloodhound Mk 2 stocks in 1991 when the system was phased out was just under 300 missiles.
RAF Bloodhound Mk 2 stocks in 1991 when the system was phased out was just under 300 missiles.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
IIRC the reason the Bloodhound force was put back in the UK was because it was required in order to get NATO infrastructure funding for the airfield/HAS hardening programme.
NATO would only pay if the airfields had SAW cover, so the Bloodhounds were placed to cover all the airfields in the south-east and the rapier sqns were put in place to cover LU/LM/KS.
I was led to believe that the order for the stand-down of the Bloodhound force took place within weeks of the last of the funding being approved.
NATO would only pay if the airfields had SAW cover, so the Bloodhounds were placed to cover all the airfields in the south-east and the rapier sqns were put in place to cover LU/LM/KS.
I was led to believe that the order for the stand-down of the Bloodhound force took place within weeks of the last of the funding being approved.
Last edited by ORAC; 30th Dec 2008 at 13:24.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
ORAC, true regarding funding. I was told that the RNoAF 'agreed' to provide SAW to get its funding slice as well but then failed so to do.
I think there was some talk of replacing Bloodhound with a more advanced system, like Patriot, but that we could get some form of benefit by standing down the Bloodhound force early and getting the new system a few months later taking the capability gap at risk. There followed the collapse of the USSR and GW1. The capability gap continued and then was allowed to become 'permanent'.
I think there was some talk of replacing Bloodhound with a more advanced system, like Patriot, but that we could get some form of benefit by standing down the Bloodhound force early and getting the new system a few months later taking the capability gap at risk. There followed the collapse of the USSR and GW1. The capability gap continued and then was allowed to become 'permanent'.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
For the Backfire/Badger/Blinder the issue was not quite as simple. The Badger did not have the range to reach UK and return on the NC route. The Backfire would have been limited to one sortie per day on that route. The Blinder wasn't a player.
Using the Baltap route the Badger could saturate the UKADR and the Backfire could mount 2 sorties per day. Blinder had some potential and it was believed the Fencer too could mount a realistic threat.
It would be interesting to find out what their plans had actually been.
Wouldn't surprise me. However when did the Airfield program finish??? plus St Mawgen got HAS's and there were no SAM defences of anykind down in that neck of the woods. Nearest was 19 Sqn RAF Regt at Brize, and they were USAF funded.
ORAC, true regarding funding. I was told that the RNoAF 'agreed' to provide SAW to get its funding slice as well but then failed so to do.
I think there was some talk of replacing Bloodhound with a more advanced system, like Patriot, but that we could get some form of benefit by standing down the Bloodhound force early and getting the new system a few months later taking the capability gap at risk. There followed the collapse of the USSR and GW1. The capability gap continued and then was allowed to become 'permanent'.
I think there was some talk of replacing Bloodhound with a more advanced system, like Patriot, but that we could get some form of benefit by standing down the Bloodhound force early and getting the new system a few months later taking the capability gap at risk. There followed the collapse of the USSR and GW1. The capability gap continued and then was allowed to become 'permanent'.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
It would be interesting to find out what their plans had actually been.
Parallel History Project - Warsaw Pact War Plans:
1964 War Plan
1965 War Plan
War Plans and Alliances in the Cold War : Threat Perceptions in the East and West
..........Storming on to Paris
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Still on earth
Age: 79
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Being non military I am aware that I only have limited comments to make but 20th century history tells me that in 1914 we did not have a large enough army (Your country needs you), in 1939 we were doing catch-up (Never in the field of human conflict etc.) and now in 2008 we have insufficient resources to fight in two areas, why should the 1970's be any different?
Didn't somebody say words to the effect "..........and savour of his country when the guns begin to sound"
Our politicians have not changed in nearly a hundred years-
rtb
Didn't somebody say words to the effect "..........and savour of his country when the guns begin to sound"
Our politicians have not changed in nearly a hundred years-
rtb
How many Sidewinders did we take to the Falklands?
Pontius wrote
The concept was weapon/target matching.
If you had, say, 60 F4 available and each had 8 missiles that was 480 missiles.
On that basis how many Sidewinders went with the SHAR force to the Falklands?
The concept was weapon/target matching.
If you had, say, 60 F4 available and each had 8 missiles that was 480 missiles.
On that basis how many Sidewinders went with the SHAR force to the Falklands?
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Thank you ORAC although I see much of it focuses on exercise war plans.
In one Wintex where endex occurs after first release of nuclear weapons, we anticipated that we were about to enter the nuclear phase with a 'nuclear demonstration.' We anticipated that SACEUR would authorise a counter-value strike against a target in the Central Region to show nuclear resolve. In the event 50 targets were selected as SACEUR also wished to gain a military advantage as well as deomstrating resolve.
But can you draw a valid conclusion from such an event in an exercise?
I would argue that the number of targets and their breadth in NATO was designed to give as many HQ and unit staffs the opportunity to practise nuclear weapons release procedure and therefore wholly unrepresentative of the real thing.
As Dennis Healey said, he would not have authorised release for real. To refuse to authorise an exercise release could have seriously damaged the interests of HMG.
Exercises are not wholly representative nor realistic.
In one Wintex where endex occurs after first release of nuclear weapons, we anticipated that we were about to enter the nuclear phase with a 'nuclear demonstration.' We anticipated that SACEUR would authorise a counter-value strike against a target in the Central Region to show nuclear resolve. In the event 50 targets were selected as SACEUR also wished to gain a military advantage as well as deomstrating resolve.
But can you draw a valid conclusion from such an event in an exercise?
I would argue that the number of targets and their breadth in NATO was designed to give as many HQ and unit staffs the opportunity to practise nuclear weapons release procedure and therefore wholly unrepresentative of the real thing.
As Dennis Healey said, he would not have authorised release for real. To refuse to authorise an exercise release could have seriously damaged the interests of HMG.
Exercises are not wholly representative nor realistic.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Mayhap, but they and the plans are all either side has, apart from politicians memoirs of what they say they would have done, and would you believe a politician?
It is a fact that the Russians always intended the Backfire as a tactical aircraft dedicated to army support in the rear area - as used in Georgia. I remember the surprise when the first photographs showing one with all the external bomb shackles surfaced.
The Badgers and Bears under naval control were also dedicated to naval ops. There would never seem to have been the concentration on strategic bomber we expected. In many respects we tended to impose our own strategic goals on the enemy.
A few years after the end of the first Cold War a US SecDef was given a tour of a Blackjack and commented on the lack of a TFR. The Russian general explained that they did not need one, their intended tactics were intended to be a medium level transit followed by a supersonic dash at FL500+ until within stand-off missile range, under cover of massed stand-of jamming.
We, of course, had all our plans with fighters on CAP at around 15K looking low for the low-level penetrators - because that was the tactic our bombers used to defeat radar.....
IIRC the Russian plan to take out the UK, subsequently leaked but I cannot remember where, consisted of a line of 5 Mt bombs down the middle of the North Sea. The subsequent radioactive tidal wave would have taken out all the airfields in East Anglia and up the east coast and just about everything inland up the Pennines.
An unsinkable aircraft carrier perhaps, but a radioactive unusable hulk.
Speaking of which, and apropos the CVF thread - the latest Chinese anti-carrier threat is ASBMs, to which I presume the Russians will also have access. I wonder how successfully a couple of T45s will defend against that threat?
It is a fact that the Russians always intended the Backfire as a tactical aircraft dedicated to army support in the rear area - as used in Georgia. I remember the surprise when the first photographs showing one with all the external bomb shackles surfaced.
The Badgers and Bears under naval control were also dedicated to naval ops. There would never seem to have been the concentration on strategic bomber we expected. In many respects we tended to impose our own strategic goals on the enemy.
A few years after the end of the first Cold War a US SecDef was given a tour of a Blackjack and commented on the lack of a TFR. The Russian general explained that they did not need one, their intended tactics were intended to be a medium level transit followed by a supersonic dash at FL500+ until within stand-off missile range, under cover of massed stand-of jamming.
We, of course, had all our plans with fighters on CAP at around 15K looking low for the low-level penetrators - because that was the tactic our bombers used to defeat radar.....
IIRC the Russian plan to take out the UK, subsequently leaked but I cannot remember where, consisted of a line of 5 Mt bombs down the middle of the North Sea. The subsequent radioactive tidal wave would have taken out all the airfields in East Anglia and up the east coast and just about everything inland up the Pennines.
An unsinkable aircraft carrier perhaps, but a radioactive unusable hulk.
Speaking of which, and apropos the CVF thread - the latest Chinese anti-carrier threat is ASBMs, to which I presume the Russians will also have access. I wonder how successfully a couple of T45s will defend against that threat?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Well, Lincolnshire
Age: 69
Posts: 1,101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Coo, a blast from the past! Taceval, Wintex et al.
Realistically, all we did was 'practice bleeding'.
Endex. Now, where's the burgers with coleslaw? Proper Endex.
Happy(?) days.
Realistically, all we did was 'practice bleeding'.
Endex. Now, where's the burgers with coleslaw? Proper Endex.
Happy(?) days.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Devon, England
Posts: 816
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't know much about the said subject and find it fascinating reading from all the people who flew during the cold war....
Did the Russians change their tactics fully towards stand-off when they finally got KH-55 Kent cruise missile, of which 12 could be carried by the Tu-160 Blackjack. Range was in excess of 3000km so they could launch the missiles from still up near Norway in the Arctic circle and manage to hit targets all over Northern Europe and beyond?
Did the Russians change their tactics fully towards stand-off when they finally got KH-55 Kent cruise missile, of which 12 could be carried by the Tu-160 Blackjack. Range was in excess of 3000km so they could launch the missiles from still up near Norway in the Arctic circle and manage to hit targets all over Northern Europe and beyond?