Nimrod MRA.4
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Am I missing something here?? This has been bugging me for a while, and I know this is probably the wrong thread, but...
The Vanguard class was introduced in 1994, and is expected to be replaced in the mid-2020s, so you're looking at around 30 years service per boat.
The Ohio class was commissioned between 1981 and 1997, with the first in its class due to be decommissioned in 2029, so potentially averaging at least 40 years service, and one of the options for replacement being considered is a refurbishment of the existing hulls. (I know its slightly more complicated than this, but I'm not sure the SSGN conversion complication is relevant?)
So how come there is such a significant difference in service life between the US SSBN and the UK SSBN? Do we really need to decommission our submarines that early? Therefore do we really need to be making decisions about replacements now? Or is this purely to ensure there is a continuous workstream through Barrow once the Astute class have been completed?
The Vanguard class was introduced in 1994, and is expected to be replaced in the mid-2020s, so you're looking at around 30 years service per boat.
The Ohio class was commissioned between 1981 and 1997, with the first in its class due to be decommissioned in 2029, so potentially averaging at least 40 years service, and one of the options for replacement being considered is a refurbishment of the existing hulls. (I know its slightly more complicated than this, but I'm not sure the SSGN conversion complication is relevant?)
So how come there is such a significant difference in service life between the US SSBN and the UK SSBN? Do we really need to decommission our submarines that early? Therefore do we really need to be making decisions about replacements now? Or is this purely to ensure there is a continuous workstream through Barrow once the Astute class have been completed?
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: troon
Age: 61
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The SLBM was no deterrent to the Argentines as they correctly assessed that their actions did not merit a nuclear response. Nuclear deterrence is predominantly to deter a major agression such as a nuclear strike.
The SSNs however proved a highly successful like for like deterrent even when not deployed.
The Vulcan demonstrated its deterrent capability with a clear demonstration of both intent and capability thus causing the Argentinians to hold air defence forces round BA. Again a successful like-for like deterrence.
What both these show is that you must be able to trump the opposition at any level with an appropriate response - a nuclear club alone is a dangerous defence.
The SSNs however proved a highly successful like for like deterrent even when not deployed.
The Vulcan demonstrated its deterrent capability with a clear demonstration of both intent and capability thus causing the Argentinians to hold air defence forces round BA. Again a successful like-for like deterrence.
What both these show is that you must be able to trump the opposition at any level with an appropriate response - a nuclear club alone is a dangerous defence.
Am I missing something here?? This has been bugging me for a while, and I know this is probably the wrong thread, but...
The Vanguard class was introduced in 1994, and is expected to be replaced in the mid-2020s, so you're looking at around 30 years service per boat.
The Ohio class was commissioned between 1981 and 1997, with the first in its class due to be decommissioned in 2029, so potentially averaging at least 40 years service, and one of the options for replacement being considered is a refurbishment of the existing hulls. (I know its slightly more complicated than this, but I'm not sure the SSGN conversion complication is relevant?)
So how come there is such a significant difference in service life between the US SSBN and the UK SSBN? Do we really need to decommission our submarines that early? Therefore do we really need to be making decisions about replacements now? Or is this purely to ensure there is a continuous workstream through Barrow once the Astute class have been completed?
The Vanguard class was introduced in 1994, and is expected to be replaced in the mid-2020s, so you're looking at around 30 years service per boat.
The Ohio class was commissioned between 1981 and 1997, with the first in its class due to be decommissioned in 2029, so potentially averaging at least 40 years service, and one of the options for replacement being considered is a refurbishment of the existing hulls. (I know its slightly more complicated than this, but I'm not sure the SSGN conversion complication is relevant?)
So how come there is such a significant difference in service life between the US SSBN and the UK SSBN? Do we really need to decommission our submarines that early? Therefore do we really need to be making decisions about replacements now? Or is this purely to ensure there is a continuous workstream through Barrow once the Astute class have been completed?
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: 45 yards from a tropical beach
Posts: 1,103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sadly, once those terrorists had taken over each cockpit, they had already won. Suppose that Air Defence had been scrambled in time, and shot the airliners down. The meeja would have gone ballistic! If you think the 'popcorn eaters' on PPRuNe are bad, imagine the howling predators of the American press after three own goals like that.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fully cognisant of the Thread drift angle, I find it odd that fanatical terrs are grasped as the "new threat". Yes, they are a new threat but it is additional to the existing State on State one. The State on State threat hasn't mysteriously gone away, as inconvenient as that might be.
Of course a bloody nuke isn't going to deter individual but organised fanatics. It may hold the attention of a future Russia, China, North Korea and whoever else acquires the sunshine generators in the future, though. Once we've given it up, we sure as hell will never get it back.
Incidentally; we need Nimrod 4s and the "alternatives" don't even come close.
Of course a bloody nuke isn't going to deter individual but organised fanatics. It may hold the attention of a future Russia, China, North Korea and whoever else acquires the sunshine generators in the future, though. Once we've given it up, we sure as hell will never get it back.
Incidentally; we need Nimrod 4s and the "alternatives" don't even come close.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: The US of A, and sometimes Bonnie Scotland
Posts: 549
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sure I read at the start of this thread, Nimrod MRA4. Not Independent Nuclear Deterrent. Or Trident. Or Vanguard. Oh, for PPRuNe 10 years ago, when the site was keen, interesting and RELEVANT. "Thread-drift"? What a great internet cliche...Oh, get a life, and stop namby-pambying about. If you all must talk about MRA4, go for it. If not, just make every thread on PPRuNe as wide and borderless as a very wide and borderless thing........
PN,
I'm pretty sure that betty knows exactly what the roles of the MRA4 will be.....
I also have to say that I entirely agree with his comments reference thread drift!
I'm pretty sure that betty knows exactly what the roles of the MRA4 will be.....
I also have to say that I entirely agree with his comments reference thread drift!
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Bavaria
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Biggus
PN,
I'm pretty sure that betty knows exactly what the roles of the MRA4 will be.....
I also have to say that I entirely agree with his comments reference thread drift!
I'm pretty sure that betty knows exactly what the roles of the MRA4 will be.....
I also have to say that I entirely agree with his comments reference thread drift!
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Tullahoma TN
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And even the might of the US, who have all shapes and sizes of clubs, could not deter a 911 style attack.
So. you agree that Israel ought to make a pre-emptive first strike on Iran before Iran has The Bomb? Following your logic, deterrence of Iran will fail.
If you all must talk about MRA4, go for it. If not, just make every thread on PPRuNe as wide and borderless as a very wide and borderless thing........
Back to topic, don't you agree that the dear old Comet airliner is hopelessly outdated, and that Britain ought to be sensible and buy some 737/P-8's and some Global Hawks?
So. you agree that Israel ought to make a pre-emptive first strike on Iran before Iran has The Bomb? Following your logic, deterrence of Iran will fail.
If you all must talk about MRA4, go for it. If not, just make every thread on PPRuNe as wide and borderless as a very wide and borderless thing........
Back to topic, don't you agree that the dear old Comet airliner is hopelessly outdated, and that Britain ought to be sensible and buy some 737/P-8's and some Global Hawks?
Modern Elmo,
Back to topic, don't you agree that the dear old Comet airliner is hopelessly outdated, and that Britain ought to be sensible and buy some 737/P-8's and some Global Hawks?
Okay - where to start?
As far as I know, the Comet is no longer in service. If it was, then yes, as an airliner, it would be hopelessly outdated. Although, it should always be remembered as the worlds first jet airliner. However, whilst the 737 is both a fine and popular aircraft - it isn't that much younger (relatively) than the dear old Comet.
Regarding the Nimrod MRA4 - which is a brand new aircraft, the performance is far superior to the P8 at absolutely every level - with the exception of sourcing cheap spare parts from around the world. For the USN, P8 and BAMS together will provide a just acceptable level of maritime capability but for other nations seeking to replace their ageing P3's with a few P8 alone, they will be sorely dissapointed.
And furthermore - the UK has not got the money right now to buy any new hardware, whether air, land or sea. So any suggestions to just go out and buy something else is a non starter at any level.
Back to topic, don't you agree that the dear old Comet airliner is hopelessly outdated, and that Britain ought to be sensible and buy some 737/P-8's and some Global Hawks?
Okay - where to start?
As far as I know, the Comet is no longer in service. If it was, then yes, as an airliner, it would be hopelessly outdated. Although, it should always be remembered as the worlds first jet airliner. However, whilst the 737 is both a fine and popular aircraft - it isn't that much younger (relatively) than the dear old Comet.
Regarding the Nimrod MRA4 - which is a brand new aircraft, the performance is far superior to the P8 at absolutely every level - with the exception of sourcing cheap spare parts from around the world. For the USN, P8 and BAMS together will provide a just acceptable level of maritime capability but for other nations seeking to replace their ageing P3's with a few P8 alone, they will be sorely dissapointed.
And furthermore - the UK has not got the money right now to buy any new hardware, whether air, land or sea. So any suggestions to just go out and buy something else is a non starter at any level.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: London
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've heard tell on ARRSE that Nimrod is absolutely the dog's bollocks at what it does, and that the alternatives don't even come close, despite it's age : it's just one of those 'Golden' designs.
Can someone knowledgeable explain why, please?
Can someone knowledgeable explain why, please?
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The sandpit
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Numerous ASW Ex's over the last few years where we have been light years ahead of everyone else.....Germans and Norwegians are good but still can't compete - won't go into detail for the obvious reasons but rest assured the crews are still extremely capable. ASW is the hardest skill/task which we conduct, therefore if we can do that we can sure as hell do ASuW to a shiit hot std too!
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: UK
Age: 53
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of the ASW exercises that JB mentions, the last major one in Feb this year saw crews from 201 and 120 Sqn notch up more ASW detections and 'kills' than the rest of the competing nations put together. No other nation comes close other than Canada who were the nearest competitor.
As PN puts it 'sh1t hot crews' which boils down to how well the crews gel and how hard they trained. Given that most other NATO countries have upgraded their fleets over the years - the US in particular and they still can't get close tells a story.
Bottom line is that the guys and gals at ISK are simply the best in the world at what they do - fact!
As PN puts it 'sh1t hot crews' which boils down to how well the crews gel and how hard they trained. Given that most other NATO countries have upgraded their fleets over the years - the US in particular and they still can't get close tells a story.
Bottom line is that the guys and gals at ISK are simply the best in the world at what they do - fact!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The submarine is the master of its element, always has been, always will be, ergo ASW = 'kin hard.
ASUW was a piece of wee, wee even before they invented s/water. Most difficult surface surveillance task was Tapestry (fishery protection) in a mark one in Area 3 (bottom half of the north sea), otherwise known as a "dry bennie".
God I'm old.
ASUW was a piece of wee, wee even before they invented s/water. Most difficult surface surveillance task was Tapestry (fishery protection) in a mark one in Area 3 (bottom half of the north sea), otherwise known as a "dry bennie".
God I'm old.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
F84
42 is alive and well, and currently based at ISK..........!
42 is alive and well, and currently based at ISK..........!