"Root & Branch review of defence spending announced"
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: troon
Age: 61
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why not simple warheads that could be strapped on the front of Tomahawk/Storm Shadow and even freefall weapons that might be stuffed into the weapons bays of a JSF? Or to the front of a hypersonic stand off weapon like Boeing's HyFly when such a thing eventually becomes available?
A cheap and cheerful deterrent, in other words?
A deterrent that would be genuinely autonomous and under national command and control, and not tied into the USA's strategic nuclear forces like Polaris and Trident were.
A cheap and cheerful deterrent, in other words?
A deterrent that would be genuinely autonomous and under national command and control, and not tied into the USA's strategic nuclear forces like Polaris and Trident were.
-Justifies a 5th gen a/c (Stealthy) to maximise chances of delivering weapon
-Justifies a platform to give 5th gen a/c a truly global reach ie LHD or CVF (I dont care which)
Just for once your talking sense
BTW I take it that peice of crap about carriers in AFM in may was your effort?
Was the piece of crap about carriers in AFM this month mine?
No, I believe that was by the Minister, Quentin Davies.
There was an anti-carrier piece the month before, though that was by this year's Aerospace Journalist of the Year winner in the Defence category..........
A carrier to give global reach?
Better hope that we get plenty of advance notice, then!
No, I believe that was by the Minister, Quentin Davies.
There was an anti-carrier piece the month before, though that was by this year's Aerospace Journalist of the Year winner in the Defence category..........
A carrier to give global reach?
Better hope that we get plenty of advance notice, then!
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Great Southern Land
Age: 57
Posts: 434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Options for More-of-the-Same"
= = = = = = = =
Scrap some of the RN's boats? I'm sure the RAN would love to gets its hands on a few hundred trained submariners to man all those boats our recent White Paper suggests will be procured, or even the current fleet.
Then ROSO is up, and off to the WA mines to earn $$$$ like eveyone else in the RAN.
= = = = = = = =
Scrap some of the RN's boats? I'm sure the RAN would love to gets its hands on a few hundred trained submariners to man all those boats our recent White Paper suggests will be procured, or even the current fleet.
Then ROSO is up, and off to the WA mines to earn $$$$ like eveyone else in the RAN.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: The Fletcher Memorial Home
Age: 59
Posts: 303
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If we are reviewing the "Root and Branch" then does that mean they are not reviewing the trunk?
So lets ask the question again, do we need super-duper technology for an air force or can we just buy something simple that drops bombs? How many Hawks can you buy for one JSF....?
So lets ask the question again, do we need super-duper technology for an air force or can we just buy something simple that drops bombs? How many Hawks can you buy for one JSF....?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jacko and Althenick,
Basic nuclear deterrence theory I'm afraid. An SLBM force is the only true "second strike platform". Doesn't matter how stealthy aircraft are if they are nuked on the ground. The only platform which comes close to the SLBM for survivability is an uber hardened silo based ICBM. Long ago the UK opted for SLBM as giving the best nuclear bang for the buck, whilst maintaining a coherent nuclear deterrence strategy.
There are many books on the subject, two of the best being "Deterrence" and "The Evolution of Nuclear Strategy" both by Lawrence Freedman.
I agree that deterring a rogue state which has a small nuclear capability with Trident is massive overkill, but that is not what Trident is for (despite what a politician might say). Trident is part of the deterrence against the major nuclear powers, Russia and China, and therefore de facto provides a deterrence against all sorts of other scenarios.
Basic nuclear deterrence theory I'm afraid. An SLBM force is the only true "second strike platform". Doesn't matter how stealthy aircraft are if they are nuked on the ground. The only platform which comes close to the SLBM for survivability is an uber hardened silo based ICBM. Long ago the UK opted for SLBM as giving the best nuclear bang for the buck, whilst maintaining a coherent nuclear deterrence strategy.
There are many books on the subject, two of the best being "Deterrence" and "The Evolution of Nuclear Strategy" both by Lawrence Freedman.
I agree that deterring a rogue state which has a small nuclear capability with Trident is massive overkill, but that is not what Trident is for (despite what a politician might say). Trident is part of the deterrence against the major nuclear powers, Russia and China, and therefore de facto provides a deterrence against all sorts of other scenarios.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Jackonicko
A deterrent that would be genuinely autonomous and under national command and control, and not tied into the USA's strategic nuclear forces like Polaris and Trident were.
We are not confusing this with the commitment to NATO are we?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree Jacko.. I think we're being walked into Trident 2 without considering other cheaper, more appropriate options.
Why not build 3 extra Astutes - we need to keep them building to keep Barrow alive. Each Astute has the ability to carry 38 weapons (TLAM / Torps). Ensure that each one carries 8 nuclear tipped TLAMs + 15 standard TLAMs and 15 torps. In the event of a crisis, any at sea SSNs would be ordered to fire all TLAMs aboard, that's nuclear and non nuclear. If we take the 1 in 3 rule, that would mean 3 SNNs worth. That's a total of 69 TLAMS heading in on the enemy. 24 of which are nuclear tipped. I can't believe that it is beyond science and technology to arrange for all these missiles to be in the air at the same time.
Another option would be for one Astute to be designated the bomber - it could carry 30 nuclear TLAMS with 8 torps.
Many argue that the new generations of AAW systems degrade this style detterent and are becoming increasing available to none top tier states. But I'd counter that you'd have to be very brave to chap to chance those odds - particularly if only high yield warheads were used on each missile. I'd also argue, that if the UK were really going toe to toe with a state that could definitely knock out all of those 69 TLAMs, the world would be in such a sh8#t storm, everyone would be chucking N bombs around.
In addition, TLAM development isn't standng still. The US needs to be able to use them in a conventional strike too - so they are going to get better at penetrating AAW protected air space.
Why not build 3 extra Astutes - we need to keep them building to keep Barrow alive. Each Astute has the ability to carry 38 weapons (TLAM / Torps). Ensure that each one carries 8 nuclear tipped TLAMs + 15 standard TLAMs and 15 torps. In the event of a crisis, any at sea SSNs would be ordered to fire all TLAMs aboard, that's nuclear and non nuclear. If we take the 1 in 3 rule, that would mean 3 SNNs worth. That's a total of 69 TLAMS heading in on the enemy. 24 of which are nuclear tipped. I can't believe that it is beyond science and technology to arrange for all these missiles to be in the air at the same time.
Another option would be for one Astute to be designated the bomber - it could carry 30 nuclear TLAMS with 8 torps.
Many argue that the new generations of AAW systems degrade this style detterent and are becoming increasing available to none top tier states. But I'd counter that you'd have to be very brave to chap to chance those odds - particularly if only high yield warheads were used on each missile. I'd also argue, that if the UK were really going toe to toe with a state that could definitely knock out all of those 69 TLAMs, the world would be in such a sh8#t storm, everyone would be chucking N bombs around.
In addition, TLAM development isn't standng still. The US needs to be able to use them in a conventional strike too - so they are going to get better at penetrating AAW protected air space.
One of the many drawbacks of TLAM as a strategic asset is that it's a bit slow. Three hours is plenty of time to get away from a target area if you are a half-decent mad dictator, as opposed to half an hour if a big boys ballistic message is coming at you.
The limited range of TLAM means that to hold the important target set at risk you have to get quite close to your oppositions coast and their ASW assets. that also means you'd have to have the three at-sea boats sitting in close. Everybody seems to assume that the target set is I'm a Dinnerjacket and Uncle Kim, whose capitals etc are relatively speaking close to the coast. That may be the case now, but in 20 years time when these boats are entering service??
Also, these enhancements to defeat AAW systems are often based around GPS which in this case really is controlled by America.......
The limited range of TLAM means that to hold the important target set at risk you have to get quite close to your oppositions coast and their ASW assets. that also means you'd have to have the three at-sea boats sitting in close. Everybody seems to assume that the target set is I'm a Dinnerjacket and Uncle Kim, whose capitals etc are relatively speaking close to the coast. That may be the case now, but in 20 years time when these boats are entering service??
Also, these enhancements to defeat AAW systems are often based around GPS which in this case really is controlled by America.......
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hulahoop7
Not a Boffin notes one drawback of TLAM in the role you depict; there are many other technical and military problems with both the weapon and platform in the role you suggest. That is not to say that it is totally unfeasible; after all the basic concept is similar. My instinct tells me that to overcome all the shortcomings you'd end up with a capability well short of Trident, without the same relative decrease in cost.
However, stick a pin in that and for the sake of argument, say that it could be made technologically possible and yield a decent cost saving. It might just create a far bigger problem.
The UK's nuclear posture is locked into strategy and policy developed in the 1960's because we are one of five priviledged states under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). the others being China, Russia, France and the US. This Treaty is accepted as discrimantory by its signatories (most, but not all, of the world's sovereign states) on the grounds that it remains the best hope for non-proliferation. On those grounds the big five are expected to play the game by everybody else - and bear in mind it is a treaty largely based on goodwill, rather than legal enforcement.
If the UK's argument for being one of the five legal nuclear powers states that it is part of the balance necessary for global nuclear peace, significantly altering our posture/policy/capability leaves other states to once again raise the question why not us? A low capability nuclear option would be a very attractive package for many countries around the globe, including a number that have all the technology they need right in place (Japan for example). Indeed this very point was made recently by the US representative on Non Proliferation.
History shows us that once a state drops out the NPT (or never signed up to it) it can go nuclear in short order - Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea.
Add all that up and I think many countries would be of the view that either we replace Trident like for like, or we step back and unilaterally disarm our nuclear capability. Which by the way is the long term goal of the NPT.
Not a Boffin notes one drawback of TLAM in the role you depict; there are many other technical and military problems with both the weapon and platform in the role you suggest. That is not to say that it is totally unfeasible; after all the basic concept is similar. My instinct tells me that to overcome all the shortcomings you'd end up with a capability well short of Trident, without the same relative decrease in cost.
However, stick a pin in that and for the sake of argument, say that it could be made technologically possible and yield a decent cost saving. It might just create a far bigger problem.
The UK's nuclear posture is locked into strategy and policy developed in the 1960's because we are one of five priviledged states under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). the others being China, Russia, France and the US. This Treaty is accepted as discrimantory by its signatories (most, but not all, of the world's sovereign states) on the grounds that it remains the best hope for non-proliferation. On those grounds the big five are expected to play the game by everybody else - and bear in mind it is a treaty largely based on goodwill, rather than legal enforcement.
If the UK's argument for being one of the five legal nuclear powers states that it is part of the balance necessary for global nuclear peace, significantly altering our posture/policy/capability leaves other states to once again raise the question why not us? A low capability nuclear option would be a very attractive package for many countries around the globe, including a number that have all the technology they need right in place (Japan for example). Indeed this very point was made recently by the US representative on Non Proliferation.
History shows us that once a state drops out the NPT (or never signed up to it) it can go nuclear in short order - Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea.
Add all that up and I think many countries would be of the view that either we replace Trident like for like, or we step back and unilaterally disarm our nuclear capability. Which by the way is the long term goal of the NPT.
Nah, Sorry, but you really haven't justified it.
I still don't see that in order to have a seat at the top table (if that seat is ours only by dint of having nukes) we need to have an SLBM based nuclear capability.
I don't see real evidence or proof of the claim that ONLY an SLBM can deter Russia or China.
Nor even that only an SLBM gives a second strike capability, though that's a less contentious claim.
There's certainly no evidence that Russia and China are the threats that our nukes need to deter, nor that we need a second strike capability. This isn't 1974, you know.
And you certainly haven't justified the claim that we'd "end up with a capability well short of Trident, without the same relative decrease in cost."
You may "think many countries would be of the view that either we replace Trident like for like, or we step back and unilaterally disarm our nuclear capability", but where's the evidence for such a view?
Your arguments seem to me to be Cold War thinking at its most stagnant and dusty, with a healthy dose of single service Matelot tunnel vision thrown in for good measure.
I still don't see that in order to have a seat at the top table (if that seat is ours only by dint of having nukes) we need to have an SLBM based nuclear capability.
I don't see real evidence or proof of the claim that ONLY an SLBM can deter Russia or China.
Nor even that only an SLBM gives a second strike capability, though that's a less contentious claim.
There's certainly no evidence that Russia and China are the threats that our nukes need to deter, nor that we need a second strike capability. This isn't 1974, you know.
And you certainly haven't justified the claim that we'd "end up with a capability well short of Trident, without the same relative decrease in cost."
You may "think many countries would be of the view that either we replace Trident like for like, or we step back and unilaterally disarm our nuclear capability", but where's the evidence for such a view?
Your arguments seem to me to be Cold War thinking at its most stagnant and dusty, with a healthy dose of single service Matelot tunnel vision thrown in for good measure.
Jacko
Draw a circle of say 1200nm range from Moscow or Beijing and see how much sea room there is. Alternatively - note how many airbases are within that distance. You won't get a TLAM class cruise carried internally in anything stealthy, so you're either in SRAM territory plus unrefuelled combat radius of some form of Stealth aircraft (F35 anyone), or you're doing a large unstealthy cruise missile carrier - yet to be developed of course - from UK.
Either way, without a stealth cruise missile - again yet to be developed - there is a significant vulnerability to AAW defences of the weapon on the way in. The time element @500-600kts still militates against deterring any regime concerned only for its own survival.
"Cold war thinking" is not necessarily outdated when nuclear deterrence is the subject.......it's only "progressive" think tanks that try to label it that way.
Draw a circle of say 1200nm range from Moscow or Beijing and see how much sea room there is. Alternatively - note how many airbases are within that distance. You won't get a TLAM class cruise carried internally in anything stealthy, so you're either in SRAM territory plus unrefuelled combat radius of some form of Stealth aircraft (F35 anyone), or you're doing a large unstealthy cruise missile carrier - yet to be developed of course - from UK.
Either way, without a stealth cruise missile - again yet to be developed - there is a significant vulnerability to AAW defences of the weapon on the way in. The time element @500-600kts still militates against deterring any regime concerned only for its own survival.
"Cold war thinking" is not necessarily outdated when nuclear deterrence is the subject.......it's only "progressive" think tanks that try to label it that way.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Dre's mum's house
Posts: 1,432
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why go down the nuclear route?
Biological warfare is far more effective: you can make them all poorly, very poorly, on death's door or holding the door open for the next victim.
It offers a means of escalation - "Stop that or we'll give you the flu, and if you think that's bad.....don't sneeze 'cos we added a little something" - instead of simply laying waste to everything.
How effective would sowing the North Korea water supply with Viagra be?
Biological warfare is far more effective: you can make them all poorly, very poorly, on death's door or holding the door open for the next victim.
It offers a means of escalation - "Stop that or we'll give you the flu, and if you think that's bad.....don't sneeze 'cos we added a little something" - instead of simply laying waste to everything.
How effective would sowing the North Korea water supply with Viagra be?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jacko,
I'm not trying to justify the independant nuclear deterrent (nor am I or was I a matelot)
You are correct in stating that there is a lot of cold war thinking in nuclear deterrence strategy; that's were the IND, and our current policy evolved from.
I'm merely pointing out some elements of deterrence theory (as formed by far greater minds than mine) and the reality of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.
There is no evidence that advanced democracies would act in any specified way towards any change in posture by the 5 nuclear powers (which, by the way is the NPT legal status of the UK, China, Russia France and the US, irresprective of who owns nuclear weapons).
There is however, plenty of evidence that many countries observe the NPT with great reluctance because it a treaty which discriminates in favour of the five NWS. India would not sign it and developed nuclear weapons, impervious to the will of the world, as did Israel. India's weapons prompted Pakistan to go nuclear, and Israel's weapons are a major driving force for an Arab nuke one day.
Whether you like it or not, our IND exists to help maintain the nuclear status quo. Downsizing it would be destablilising as it would be identified for what it would be - the backbone of a low cost, high deterrence military strategy. Great for us, but a complete abuse of our status within the NPT. If it seems complex that's just because it is. Already analysts and Government advisors have noted that as nuclear weapons diminish (which they are obliged to do under the NPT) the relative cost of ownership diminishes and therefore the attraction of ownership increases. The end game is not clear: can we get rid of all nuclear wepons safely, or will attempting to do so unleash a sudden charge for ownership amongst those with the technology in place?
In this context many people would argue that getting rid of all our nukes is not only the most cost effective option, it is also one of the safest. Equally, many more (including our mainstream political parties) think now is not the time to give it up.
On a personal note (as all I have written is really just plagiarised from deterrence theory) I an not optimistic about the long term outcome whatever the UK chooses to do. I've always thought the genie has long since escaped the bottle and it is only a matter of time before a nutter gets the bomb and/or somebody somewhere chucks a few about.
Still, I live in Scotland and when the SNP get in they are going to get rid of the UK's IND anyway, so at least I'll be in nuclear free state.
I'm not trying to justify the independant nuclear deterrent (nor am I or was I a matelot)
You are correct in stating that there is a lot of cold war thinking in nuclear deterrence strategy; that's were the IND, and our current policy evolved from.
I'm merely pointing out some elements of deterrence theory (as formed by far greater minds than mine) and the reality of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.
There is no evidence that advanced democracies would act in any specified way towards any change in posture by the 5 nuclear powers (which, by the way is the NPT legal status of the UK, China, Russia France and the US, irresprective of who owns nuclear weapons).
There is however, plenty of evidence that many countries observe the NPT with great reluctance because it a treaty which discriminates in favour of the five NWS. India would not sign it and developed nuclear weapons, impervious to the will of the world, as did Israel. India's weapons prompted Pakistan to go nuclear, and Israel's weapons are a major driving force for an Arab nuke one day.
Whether you like it or not, our IND exists to help maintain the nuclear status quo. Downsizing it would be destablilising as it would be identified for what it would be - the backbone of a low cost, high deterrence military strategy. Great for us, but a complete abuse of our status within the NPT. If it seems complex that's just because it is. Already analysts and Government advisors have noted that as nuclear weapons diminish (which they are obliged to do under the NPT) the relative cost of ownership diminishes and therefore the attraction of ownership increases. The end game is not clear: can we get rid of all nuclear wepons safely, or will attempting to do so unleash a sudden charge for ownership amongst those with the technology in place?
In this context many people would argue that getting rid of all our nukes is not only the most cost effective option, it is also one of the safest. Equally, many more (including our mainstream political parties) think now is not the time to give it up.
On a personal note (as all I have written is really just plagiarised from deterrence theory) I an not optimistic about the long term outcome whatever the UK chooses to do. I've always thought the genie has long since escaped the bottle and it is only a matter of time before a nutter gets the bomb and/or somebody somewhere chucks a few about.
Still, I live in Scotland and when the SNP get in they are going to get rid of the UK's IND anyway, so at least I'll be in nuclear free state.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: YES
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder what the ratio of civil servants to service personel is now? I know it used to be compared to a single service then to save embarassment it had to be compared to 2 then all 3 services.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Here, there and everywhere
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OFO,
I'd be interested to know how the SNP would manage to get rid of the UK's deterrent. Are they likely to win the next general election in Westminster then? Even if they closed all RN and RAF bases in Scotland, I doubt any nuclear armed aggressor will make any real distinction between Scotland and the rest of the UK. Besides, nuclear weapons are not exactly known for their precision and the UK is a fairly small island; even a relatively small nuke in Cornwall would affect many north of the border.
Twon
I'd be interested to know how the SNP would manage to get rid of the UK's deterrent. Are they likely to win the next general election in Westminster then? Even if they closed all RN and RAF bases in Scotland, I doubt any nuclear armed aggressor will make any real distinction between Scotland and the rest of the UK. Besides, nuclear weapons are not exactly known for their precision and the UK is a fairly small island; even a relatively small nuke in Cornwall would affect many north of the border.
Twon
Time to sit back and watch the disintegration of our forces.
The current conflict in Afghanistan requires will, determination and organisation. Unfortunately, the Taleban seem to have more of these qualities than our own government.
Unfortunately, the imminent general election will come too late, and is unlikely to change much. The tories will get a grip of the economy, but seem equally disinterested in the Armed Forces.
They will have enough of a job stopping the UK from becoming Burkina Faso, and defence funding will, I fear, be spent on bandages, tubigrips and chalk.
Flights leave Heathrow all day everyday, by the way.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Under Capricorn
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: OTA E
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Calm Down
All they've announced is a Green Paper. The Defence Review itself wont happen until after the election.
UKPLC is broke. Deliverance is probably right - we can afford about £30Bn. So what do we [U]have[U] to keep doing, and what can we stop doing, and how much do these things cost?
I suspect that, if we keep a submarine-based deterrent, our conventional capabilities will be reduced to a zoo's worth of paper tigers. By which I mean, we will have to give up any realistic of prospect of being able to act independently, or lead a coalition, against any force more capable than the West Side Boys.
UKPLC is broke. Deliverance is probably right - we can afford about £30Bn. So what do we [U]have[U] to keep doing, and what can we stop doing, and how much do these things cost?
I suspect that, if we keep a submarine-based deterrent, our conventional capabilities will be reduced to a zoo's worth of paper tigers. By which I mean, we will have to give up any realistic of prospect of being able to act independently, or lead a coalition, against any force more capable than the West Side Boys.
Talking to chums working in various HQs and MOD, there is apparently a rumour now doing the rounds that there is serious consideration to cutting the RAF to around 30,000 in any coming defence review.
Has anyone else heard similar rumours? If so, what exactly constitutes a viable Air Force - where is the thin red line beyond which we may as well pack up and go home?
Just out of interest, and to put that figure into some sort of context - 30,000is the same size of Birmingham City FC's ground. If that wasn't bad enough, at 30,000 you could easily fit all the RAF into Leicester, Coventry, Southampton, Derby, Leeds (now a 3rd Division in old money team) FCs' stadiums with seats left over. God now I'm depressed.
Has anyone else heard similar rumours? If so, what exactly constitutes a viable Air Force - where is the thin red line beyond which we may as well pack up and go home?
Just out of interest, and to put that figure into some sort of context - 30,000is the same size of Birmingham City FC's ground. If that wasn't bad enough, at 30,000 you could easily fit all the RAF into Leicester, Coventry, Southampton, Derby, Leeds (now a 3rd Division in old money team) FCs' stadiums with seats left over. God now I'm depressed.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Desert mainly, occasionally arctic and rarely jungle
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Talking to chums working in various HQs and MOD, there is apparently a rumour now doing the rounds that there is serious consideration to cutting the RAF to around 30,000 in any coming defence review.
I have heard similar stories relating to all 3 services from a very well placed RN source.