Nimrod MRA.4
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: North of Down There!
Age: 52
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lets all wait till after October and see where the chips fall and in the mean time stop spouting b
xRegards to all
Last edited by Dave Angel; 14th Sep 2010 at 20:44. Reason: Spelling
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: St Annes
Age: 68
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As MRA4 is pretty well about to be delivered, depending on how you want to describe the current situation, there's presumably little money to be saved by cancelling the aircraft itself, althought here are bound to be potential savings - I'd guess fairly paltry ones however compared to cancelling any of the big budget items - by shutting RAF Kinloss.
As RP says, Predator (etc) can't do all the MRA4 will do, it's not necessarily a bright idea to tailor your forces exclusively to conflict in Afghanistan anyway. It's also a bit pointless to have an SSBN based deterrent without MPA as unless you can be sure that the SSBN can deploy unhindered then you face the prospect of dealing with 'our deterrent just got sunk' taking the biggest chip you possess off the table.
I think it's essential that our political masters sit down and think very hard about the roles we need to be able to cover - what is most important to us as a nation? They must then decide what we can afford, then arrange to do it - protection of the UK itself is number one, power projection is another role, and one we should consider important...but not at the expense of number one, there is no role for our armed forces that is more important than protection of the UK itself. What we might claim in the Antarctic is certainly worth thinking about, but there's little point in grabbing 'potential resources' elsewhere if the UK has been conquered by a lightning raid from the Isle of Man that we hadn't the forces to beat off...
As RP says, Predator (etc) can't do all the MRA4 will do, it's not necessarily a bright idea to tailor your forces exclusively to conflict in Afghanistan anyway. It's also a bit pointless to have an SSBN based deterrent without MPA as unless you can be sure that the SSBN can deploy unhindered then you face the prospect of dealing with 'our deterrent just got sunk' taking the biggest chip you possess off the table.
I think it's essential that our political masters sit down and think very hard about the roles we need to be able to cover - what is most important to us as a nation? They must then decide what we can afford, then arrange to do it - protection of the UK itself is number one, power projection is another role, and one we should consider important...but not at the expense of number one, there is no role for our armed forces that is more important than protection of the UK itself. What we might claim in the Antarctic is certainly worth thinking about, but there's little point in grabbing 'potential resources' elsewhere if the UK has been conquered by a lightning raid from the Isle of Man that we hadn't the forces to beat off...
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dave Angel
I agree with you, but because the "core maritime roles" have diminished, the overland Afghanistan type of role (an add-on) is being pushed by many in order to justify the introduction of the Mk 4.
DV
I agree with you, but because the "core maritime roles" have diminished, the overland Afghanistan type of role (an add-on) is being pushed by many in order to justify the introduction of the Mk 4.
DV
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: .
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DV - Incorrect speculation again.
The 'core maritime role' has certainly not diminished, we are still an island surrounded by water who relies on the seas for our bulk trade.
Also I'm not aware of 'an overland Afghanistan type role' being pushed by anyone for MRA4 and I'm waiting to start the OCU (whenever that will be).
No one knows what the defence review will leave behind, especially you.
I would love to know where you get your information from..or are you just guessing to fill space?
FG
Also I'm not aware of 'an overland Afghanistan type role' being pushed by anyone for MRA4 and I'm waiting to start the OCU (whenever that will be).
No one knows what the defence review will leave behind, especially you.
I would love to know where you get your information from..or are you just guessing to fill space?
FG
because the "core maritime roles" have diminished
ASW - Still valid and nothing else to do it.
ASuW - Still valid (and arguably in the anti-piracy requirement, growing) and nothing else to do it (despite what the E3 might claim).
MCT - Still valid and nothing else to do it.
LR SAR - Still valid and nothing else to do it (unless we re-role some C130Js, paint them orange and white and give them to the MCA when they are withdrawn from RAF service in 20.....).
And if we accept that multi-role for all types in the future to ensure we have flexibility and VFM (
) then MRA4 is one of the few true multi-role platforms coming. And of course it can do overland combat ISTAR - if that is what it is tasked to do - it might not be a "core role" but just like the MR2 it will be capable of doing it - if it is tasked to do so.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: N. Spain
Age: 79
Posts: 1,311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And as far as Trident goes, who in their right mind believes that we (UK) will ever use our independent deterrent, independently. So there is no need for a sophisticated delivery system, just the weapon that allows us to sit at the "nuclear table".
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Bavaria
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If it has to be used it's no longer a "deterrent" If we don't have it......no deterrent.
It didn't deter Argentina from invading the Falklands.
In what current scenarios might it prove useful?
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Tullahoma TN
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a deterrent how much use is it?
It didn't deter Argentina from invading the Falklands.
In what current scenarios might it prove useful?
But "it" sure did stop the former USSR from advancing any further west after spring 1945.
If you're talking about the present and future, you need to be more specific about this "it."
Is "it" a large fusion bomb detonated over a city, or a deep earth penetrator with a lower yield warhead and a delayed action fuse, or a mini-nuke that can destroy a hostile warship or a land-based military concenetration with small collateral damage?
It didn't deter Argentina from invading the Falklands.
In what current scenarios might it prove useful?
But "it" sure did stop the former USSR from advancing any further west after spring 1945.
If you're talking about the present and future, you need to be more specific about this "it."
Is "it" a large fusion bomb detonated over a city, or a deep earth penetrator with a lower yield warhead and a delayed action fuse, or a mini-nuke that can destroy a hostile warship or a land-based military concenetration with small collateral damage?
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Bavaria
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you're talking about the present and future, you need to be more specific about this "it."
Is "it" a large fusion bomb detonated over a city, or a deep earth penetrator with a lower yield warhead and a delayed action fuse, or a mini-nuke that can destroy a hostile warship or a land-based military concenetration with small collateral damage?
Is "it" a large fusion bomb detonated over a city, or a deep earth penetrator with a lower yield warhead and a delayed action fuse, or a mini-nuke that can destroy a hostile warship or a land-based military concenetration with small collateral damage?
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Tullahoma TN
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What do you think about this follow on to Trident? Below I think "conventional" means non-nu-clear fish-un, as I would tend to pronounce the words.
" ... Both conventional and nuclear payloads to be considered ..."
Submarine Launched Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile (SLIRBM)
Submarine Launched Global Strike Missile (SLGSM)
A new SLBM would be needed in about 2029 to match the schedule for a follow-on SSBN. The Navy has begun studies to examine range-payload requirements and missile size, but no specific plans for a follow-on SLBM at this point other than extending the service life of the Trident D-5.
...
The Trident II (D5) system is currently undergoing a life-extension (LE) program to extend the service life of the weapon system until 2042, to match the hull life of the Ohio-class submarine.
...
On 25 August 2003 the Department of the Navy, Strategic Systems Programs [SSP] issued a Request for Information (RFI) to determine the latest plans and programs including technology challenges and proposed solutions for affordable Submarine Launched Intermediate Range Ballistic Missiles (SLIRBMs), including launch considerations and potential payloads. ...
The SLIRBM requirements include: 1. System must be affordable 2. Range - IRBM 3. Missile diameter - 32.5 inches maximum [ie, half that of the current Trident-2] 4. Both conventional and nuclear payloads to be considered 5. Payload weights, diameters and length to be consistent with missile dimensions and range 6. Conventional payload system to have GPS accuracy 7. Missile subsystem hardened to Space Grade 8. Control of collateral damage to be considered (e.g., stage debris control) 9. Intermediate range ballistic missiles, including their payloads, and all of the launcher subsystem except for electronics, are to be contained within the 86 inch diameter TRIDENT missile launch tube 10. Usable missile tube length (for missile, payload and launcher) of 36 feet maximum.
...
On 12 July 2005 Alliant Techsystems and Lockheed Martin were awarded a $9.2 million contract by the U.S. Navy’s Strategic Systems Program (SSP) office to demonstrate and validate solid rocket motor technologies suitable for a Submarine Launched Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile (SLIRBM).
SLIRBM is a conventional missile concept that builds on the heritage the two companies share in US Navy strategic missile development. Lockheed Martin and ATK provide the US Navy with the submarine-launched Trident D5 nuclear ballistic missile.
SLIRBM is designed to precisely deliver a conventional payload on target at ranges in excess of 1100 miles within 10-15 minutes of launch.
.Submarine Launched Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile (SLIRBM) / Submarine Launched Global Strike Missile (SLGSM)
" ... Both conventional and nuclear payloads to be considered ..."
Submarine Launched Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile (SLIRBM)
Submarine Launched Global Strike Missile (SLGSM)
A new SLBM would be needed in about 2029 to match the schedule for a follow-on SSBN. The Navy has begun studies to examine range-payload requirements and missile size, but no specific plans for a follow-on SLBM at this point other than extending the service life of the Trident D-5.
...
The Trident II (D5) system is currently undergoing a life-extension (LE) program to extend the service life of the weapon system until 2042, to match the hull life of the Ohio-class submarine.
...
On 25 August 2003 the Department of the Navy, Strategic Systems Programs [SSP] issued a Request for Information (RFI) to determine the latest plans and programs including technology challenges and proposed solutions for affordable Submarine Launched Intermediate Range Ballistic Missiles (SLIRBMs), including launch considerations and potential payloads. ...
The SLIRBM requirements include: 1. System must be affordable 2. Range - IRBM 3. Missile diameter - 32.5 inches maximum [ie, half that of the current Trident-2] 4. Both conventional and nuclear payloads to be considered 5. Payload weights, diameters and length to be consistent with missile dimensions and range 6. Conventional payload system to have GPS accuracy 7. Missile subsystem hardened to Space Grade 8. Control of collateral damage to be considered (e.g., stage debris control) 9. Intermediate range ballistic missiles, including their payloads, and all of the launcher subsystem except for electronics, are to be contained within the 86 inch diameter TRIDENT missile launch tube 10. Usable missile tube length (for missile, payload and launcher) of 36 feet maximum.
...
On 12 July 2005 Alliant Techsystems and Lockheed Martin were awarded a $9.2 million contract by the U.S. Navy’s Strategic Systems Program (SSP) office to demonstrate and validate solid rocket motor technologies suitable for a Submarine Launched Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile (SLIRBM).
SLIRBM is a conventional missile concept that builds on the heritage the two companies share in US Navy strategic missile development. Lockheed Martin and ATK provide the US Navy with the submarine-launched Trident D5 nuclear ballistic missile.
SLIRBM is designed to precisely deliver a conventional payload on target at ranges in excess of 1100 miles within 10-15 minutes of launch.
.Submarine Launched Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile (SLIRBM) / Submarine Launched Global Strike Missile (SLGSM)
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Bavaria
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What do you think about this follow on to Trident?
...SLIRBM is designed to precisely deliver a conventional payload on target at ranges in excess of 1100 miles within 10-15 minutes of launch.
...SLIRBM is designed to precisely deliver a conventional payload on target at ranges in excess of 1100 miles within 10-15 minutes of launch.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Aylesbury
Age: 58
Posts: 378
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"If Trident gets the axe, why not use them before we lose them. I can think of a few deserving recipients"
Hmmmm..............
Turning the Nuclear Free Socialist Republic Of Islington and the Kingdom of Kirkcaldy & Cowdenbeath into an uninhabitable radioactive wasteland does have a certain appeal....
Hmmmm..............
Turning the Nuclear Free Socialist Republic Of Islington and the Kingdom of Kirkcaldy & Cowdenbeath into an uninhabitable radioactive wasteland does have a certain appeal....
PN:
In which case they missed their chances I would suggest. Is it possible that they placed them around Buenos Aires instead, Nav?
thus causing the Argentinians to hold air defence forces round Rio.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Bavaria
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Pontious
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.
It's neccessary, it seems, that we choose our enemies very carefully. In order that they will compliment our limited capabilities. (which I suppose could explain the long standing antipathy towards the French...)