Nuclear Deterrent
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
I always thought the advantage of a sub-surface system was the alility to be anywhere off of the UK almost completely undetectable, preventing the enemy from taking our system out so they can use their system? The subs have had a continuous 50 year patrol and at anytime there is at least one of the four (three yet?) patrolling UK waters.
Surely this type of continued detterance and secrecy is less achievable by air means?
Surely this type of continued detterance and secrecy is less achievable by air means?
You only have to look at the difficulties we faced bombing the Falkland Islands, of course if Maggie had been so inclined just how many minutes would it have taken mr polaris to reach downtown Cordoba. 15-20? I am assuming that the range was sufficient, or the launch sub had moved a little closer to the equator.
Manuel,
The UKs free fall nuclear bombs wouldn't have come into it and certainly not under START/SORT. It was a unilateral decision by the UK Government to retire WE177 early and have that sub-strategic mission incorporated into Trident.
Those WE177s assigned to NATO would have been tactical munitions and not covered by the likes of START. The UK had no heavy strategic bombers to carry the higher yield WE177Bs. The US and the Russians didn't have treaties over tactical nuclear weapons but instead had Presidential Nuclear Initiatives. Those initiatives and pledges were already in hand to reduce the number of tactical nukes. It resulted in some 3,000 US tactical nuclear weapons not covered by START being destroyed.
TJ
The UKs free fall nuclear bombs wouldn't have come into it and certainly not under START/SORT. It was a unilateral decision by the UK Government to retire WE177 early and have that sub-strategic mission incorporated into Trident.
Those WE177s assigned to NATO would have been tactical munitions and not covered by the likes of START. The UK had no heavy strategic bombers to carry the higher yield WE177Bs. The US and the Russians didn't have treaties over tactical nuclear weapons but instead had Presidential Nuclear Initiatives. Those initiatives and pledges were already in hand to reduce the number of tactical nukes. It resulted in some 3,000 US tactical nuclear weapons not covered by START being destroyed.
TJ
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Glasgow
Age: 61
Posts: 909
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nuclear Glug Glugs
Major problem the UK has: -
1/ All relevant vessels depart RNAD Coulport
2/ It is possible to see when vessels are docked and receiving/ unloading armaments.
3/ Is possible to see when vessels depart/ arrive
4/ All vessels depart single point
5/ All vessels leave Clyde
6/ UK Trident not as undetectable as believed. But then nor is any sub surface vessel of these size
7/ Ever seen surface effects from these things? They are detectable from space. Forget about degaussing. That's irrelevant. Oh yes. The system (degaussing) don't work.
8/ Acoustics. Ever tried avoiding the noise from seismic sources? They totally give you away. Am glad North Sea is getting quieter. Except that the seismic sources also provided primary defence as well for us.
9/ sub surface fixed acoustic arrays. They can and are captured.
10/ The rims where weapons are stored are about as secure as a barn. That is no secret
11/ How often have Faslane and Coulport been interdicted? Lots.
12/ Want a quiet sub? Don't ask the Brits. We lost our lead a few decades ago. Astute class don't have it.
13/ We have very few vessels. It makes it even easier to trace us.
14/ We are allowed to use deterrents in a number of circumstances without US permission
15/ Any deterrents launched from a sub surface vessel leave the least response time compared to any other possible deterrent. The UK have no system better - as yet.
I could go on, but I bet you are bored by now.
Hval
1/ All relevant vessels depart RNAD Coulport
2/ It is possible to see when vessels are docked and receiving/ unloading armaments.
3/ Is possible to see when vessels depart/ arrive
4/ All vessels depart single point
5/ All vessels leave Clyde
6/ UK Trident not as undetectable as believed. But then nor is any sub surface vessel of these size
7/ Ever seen surface effects from these things? They are detectable from space. Forget about degaussing. That's irrelevant. Oh yes. The system (degaussing) don't work.
8/ Acoustics. Ever tried avoiding the noise from seismic sources? They totally give you away. Am glad North Sea is getting quieter. Except that the seismic sources also provided primary defence as well for us.
9/ sub surface fixed acoustic arrays. They can and are captured.
10/ The rims where weapons are stored are about as secure as a barn. That is no secret
11/ How often have Faslane and Coulport been interdicted? Lots.
12/ Want a quiet sub? Don't ask the Brits. We lost our lead a few decades ago. Astute class don't have it.
13/ We have very few vessels. It makes it even easier to trace us.
14/ We are allowed to use deterrents in a number of circumstances without US permission
15/ Any deterrents launched from a sub surface vessel leave the least response time compared to any other possible deterrent. The UK have no system better - as yet.
I could go on, but I bet you are bored by now.
Hval
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Brisbane Australia
Age: 81
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely one of the major reasons for the RAF losing the Nuclear Deterrent Role was the due to the fact that, whether at high or low level, it was almost certain that the bomber would be shot from the sky the minute it crossed the Iron Curtain. Wouldn't that still hold true.?
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since the Tories ( who are sadly likely to get the next go, and I'm not a Labour fan either ) have already stated they will make 25% defence cuts; that is a HUGE cut !
In a perfect world - sort of - I'd agree with the Trident replacement, but if we do that aren't we certain to lose the carriers and / or JSF ?
My main worry is China, the nutter middle east states wouldn't care about being wiped out, so little deterrent effect.
My suggestion would be to bin the Trident, have more Astutes with nuclear Tomahawks ( yes they can be shot down but who's going to gamble on getting all of them ? ), build a sensible no. of Type 45's ( I believe the PAAMS missile can be used for point anti-missile work with a bit of tweaking, as the Aegis & Arleigh Burke American jobs can ), and build 3 more CVS style carriers flying Harrier 2+ with AMRAAM.
If cutting 25% - or more, we cannot afford Trident, the big carriers or JSF unless every useful bit of kit, ie the stuff that might actually get used, is forgotten.
In a perfect world - sort of - I'd agree with the Trident replacement, but if we do that aren't we certain to lose the carriers and / or JSF ?
My main worry is China, the nutter middle east states wouldn't care about being wiped out, so little deterrent effect.
My suggestion would be to bin the Trident, have more Astutes with nuclear Tomahawks ( yes they can be shot down but who's going to gamble on getting all of them ? ), build a sensible no. of Type 45's ( I believe the PAAMS missile can be used for point anti-missile work with a bit of tweaking, as the Aegis & Arleigh Burke American jobs can ), and build 3 more CVS style carriers flying Harrier 2+ with AMRAAM.
If cutting 25% - or more, we cannot afford Trident, the big carriers or JSF unless every useful bit of kit, ie the stuff that might actually get used, is forgotten.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Surely one of the major reasons for the RAF losing the Nuclear Deterrent Role was the due to the fact that, whether at high or low level, it was almost certain that the bomber would be shot from the sky the minute it crossed the Iron Curtain. Wouldn't that still hold true.?
The airborne deterrent is a classic use it or lose it play.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Tullahoma TN
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely one of the major reasons for the RAF losing the Nuclear Deterrent Role was the due to the fact that, whether at high or low level, it was almost certain that the bomber would be shot from the sky the minute it crossed the Iron Curtain.
Mathias Rust.
Mathias Rust.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oberbayern
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Double Zero said: "My main worry is China, the nutter middle east states wouldn't care about being wiped out, so little deterrent effect."
China is certainly an impressive military power, but somehow, I can't see them nuking anybody. - They appear to be a bit too smart for that; they've cottoned on to the fact that you can win more easily through trade.
When European nations wanted wealth from Africa, they colonised various countries, farmed them, mined them, did help the locals to improve their standard of living, but extracted a considerable amount of wealth. Then they were booted out.
Nowadays, China is probably the biggest (in wealth) foreign power in Africa. They don't build hundreds of schools and hospitals, they don't import thousands of Chinese as permanent residents to colonise the countries - they have a much simpler, cheaper and more efficient method. Make impressively large payments to the local ruler, provide him with any 'assistance' he may need to stay in power, rent some farmland from him at favourable prices, import Chinese labour to do the work - then send them back home later (they've got a lot of people to feed back home) and all they ask for in return is cheap access to minerals.
China needs sources of energy and the raw materials -- including copper, cobalt, cadmium, magnesium, platinum, nickel, lead, zinc, coltan, titanium -- that African nations can supply. China competes with the United States for Angola's oil, controls most of the Sudan's oil, and is exploring for oil onshore and offshore in five other African countries. It is a major purchaser of timber from West Africa.
Where do you think Mugabe got those beautiful blue tiles which roof his palace outside Harare?
Supporting a government - particularly a government which may be under threat from its own people - is much cheaper than colonisation.
Another example: I've heard it said that the real reason for the war in Iraq was oil. (I'm not getting into that argument.) The 'coalition of the willing' spent huge amounts of money, materiel and manpower fighting a war in Iraq.
The Iraqi government finalised its first major post-war oil treaty this summer.
With China.
The Chinese are fighting (and winning) their 'wars' by trade. They import materials from Africa and other places in the 3rd world (cheaply) and they sell their products to the Western world.
Who would they want to nuke? - Their suppliers or their customers?
China is certainly an impressive military power, but somehow, I can't see them nuking anybody. - They appear to be a bit too smart for that; they've cottoned on to the fact that you can win more easily through trade.
When European nations wanted wealth from Africa, they colonised various countries, farmed them, mined them, did help the locals to improve their standard of living, but extracted a considerable amount of wealth. Then they were booted out.
Nowadays, China is probably the biggest (in wealth) foreign power in Africa. They don't build hundreds of schools and hospitals, they don't import thousands of Chinese as permanent residents to colonise the countries - they have a much simpler, cheaper and more efficient method. Make impressively large payments to the local ruler, provide him with any 'assistance' he may need to stay in power, rent some farmland from him at favourable prices, import Chinese labour to do the work - then send them back home later (they've got a lot of people to feed back home) and all they ask for in return is cheap access to minerals.
China needs sources of energy and the raw materials -- including copper, cobalt, cadmium, magnesium, platinum, nickel, lead, zinc, coltan, titanium -- that African nations can supply. China competes with the United States for Angola's oil, controls most of the Sudan's oil, and is exploring for oil onshore and offshore in five other African countries. It is a major purchaser of timber from West Africa.
Where do you think Mugabe got those beautiful blue tiles which roof his palace outside Harare?
Supporting a government - particularly a government which may be under threat from its own people - is much cheaper than colonisation.
Another example: I've heard it said that the real reason for the war in Iraq was oil. (I'm not getting into that argument.) The 'coalition of the willing' spent huge amounts of money, materiel and manpower fighting a war in Iraq.
The Iraqi government finalised its first major post-war oil treaty this summer.
With China.
The Chinese are fighting (and winning) their 'wars' by trade. They import materials from Africa and other places in the 3rd world (cheaply) and they sell their products to the Western world.
Who would they want to nuke? - Their suppliers or their customers?
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Tullahoma TN
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The mixed load option:
[I][/INo Non-Nukes on Ballistic Missile Submarines
Posted by David A. Fulghum at 3/6/2008 10:36 AM CST
Congress won't yield in its determination that U.S. submarines won’t carry a mix of nuclear and conventionally-armed ballistic missiles at the same time. They don’t want a nuclear war triggered by the launch of a conventionally-armed missile from a submarine.
So for the time being, at least, the whole discussion with Congress about a conventional Trident [missile] modification is dead. Nonetheless, four SSGNs have been converted to non-nuclear missions, and the concept of using a sea-based system is not ruled out, says Gen. Kevin Chilton, chief of U.S. Strategic Command. “It’s just that the proposal that there will be a mixed load out, is something that Congress is not comfortable with.”
The initial proposal had 14 Ohio-class SSBNs each loaded with 2 conventional D-5 missiles (with each carrying four kinetic warheads) and 22 nuclear missiles. From as much as 4,000 mi. away, the conventional missile could hit early warning radars, terrorist camps and enemy leaders. For military planers it would cover the initial one-hour gap in responding to a threat anywhere on the globe. However, the ambiguity produced by an unexpected launch, particularly in an edgy foe, is obvious.
“Congress has made it clear that the [conventional, submarine-based missile] is a capability they would not like to see deployed” as part of the long-range, rapid strike program, Chilton says. “But we were unsuccessful in getting [lawmakers] comfortable with the Trident approach. [They rejected the idea of] using the CTM proposal of a mixed [nuclear, conventional] loadout [on a submarine],” he says.
However, StratCom hasn’t stopped pursuing the capability. “We’re learning more as we continue to develop the technologies we need for prompt global strike that could be land-based,” he says.
Ares Homepage
...
... A new deterrent posture could include conventional ballistic missiles (CBMs), a new factor in deterrence, but so far more dangerous to careers than to adversaries. Asked about CBMs at the Space and Missile Defense Conference in Huntsville, Ala., in August, Marine Corps Gen. James E. Cartwright, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, responded: "You want to see the scar tissue?"
The case for CBMs is strong. "The only systems that we have that can get to the fight in minutes have been nuclear warheads," Cartwright says. "Is that prudent? It is relevant, in that the enemy believes we will use it." Air Force Gen. (ret.) Eugene Habiger, involved in the CBM effort, notes, however, "a 1,000-lb. conventional warhead with a few meters CEP (circular error probable) has the same effect as 50 kilotons at 3,000 ft."
CBM, Habiger told the Omaha conference, "was a great idea. The Navy calculated that they could provide 100 CBMs for $500 million. But Stratcom didn't get the regional [commanders-in-chief] involved to persuade the secretaries of State and Defense that we needed it, and that was a great way to kill it."
However, as Cartwright noted, the initial CBM--Conventional Trident--is being brought to a point where it could be fielded within 18 months (as Congress directed). Also, tests being conducted in "four to five months" will demonstrate technologies to deal with "ambiguity issues"--the problem of demonstrating that a missile launch is not nuclear. "That's seen as more of a way forward." ...
U.S. Rethinks Nuclear Strategy | AVIATION WEEK
[I][/INo Non-Nukes on Ballistic Missile Submarines
Posted by David A. Fulghum at 3/6/2008 10:36 AM CST
Congress won't yield in its determination that U.S. submarines won’t carry a mix of nuclear and conventionally-armed ballistic missiles at the same time. They don’t want a nuclear war triggered by the launch of a conventionally-armed missile from a submarine.
So for the time being, at least, the whole discussion with Congress about a conventional Trident [missile] modification is dead. Nonetheless, four SSGNs have been converted to non-nuclear missions, and the concept of using a sea-based system is not ruled out, says Gen. Kevin Chilton, chief of U.S. Strategic Command. “It’s just that the proposal that there will be a mixed load out, is something that Congress is not comfortable with.”
The initial proposal had 14 Ohio-class SSBNs each loaded with 2 conventional D-5 missiles (with each carrying four kinetic warheads) and 22 nuclear missiles. From as much as 4,000 mi. away, the conventional missile could hit early warning radars, terrorist camps and enemy leaders. For military planers it would cover the initial one-hour gap in responding to a threat anywhere on the globe. However, the ambiguity produced by an unexpected launch, particularly in an edgy foe, is obvious.
“Congress has made it clear that the [conventional, submarine-based missile] is a capability they would not like to see deployed” as part of the long-range, rapid strike program, Chilton says. “But we were unsuccessful in getting [lawmakers] comfortable with the Trident approach. [They rejected the idea of] using the CTM proposal of a mixed [nuclear, conventional] loadout [on a submarine],” he says.
However, StratCom hasn’t stopped pursuing the capability. “We’re learning more as we continue to develop the technologies we need for prompt global strike that could be land-based,” he says.
Ares Homepage
...
... A new deterrent posture could include conventional ballistic missiles (CBMs), a new factor in deterrence, but so far more dangerous to careers than to adversaries. Asked about CBMs at the Space and Missile Defense Conference in Huntsville, Ala., in August, Marine Corps Gen. James E. Cartwright, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, responded: "You want to see the scar tissue?"
The case for CBMs is strong. "The only systems that we have that can get to the fight in minutes have been nuclear warheads," Cartwright says. "Is that prudent? It is relevant, in that the enemy believes we will use it." Air Force Gen. (ret.) Eugene Habiger, involved in the CBM effort, notes, however, "a 1,000-lb. conventional warhead with a few meters CEP (circular error probable) has the same effect as 50 kilotons at 3,000 ft."
CBM, Habiger told the Omaha conference, "was a great idea. The Navy calculated that they could provide 100 CBMs for $500 million. But Stratcom didn't get the regional [commanders-in-chief] involved to persuade the secretaries of State and Defense that we needed it, and that was a great way to kill it."
However, as Cartwright noted, the initial CBM--Conventional Trident--is being brought to a point where it could be fielded within 18 months (as Congress directed). Also, tests being conducted in "four to five months" will demonstrate technologies to deal with "ambiguity issues"--the problem of demonstrating that a missile launch is not nuclear. "That's seen as more of a way forward." ...
U.S. Rethinks Nuclear Strategy | AVIATION WEEK
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Tullahoma TN
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
U.S. Rethinks Nuclear Strategy
Sep 3, 2009
Bill Sweetman/Omaha, Neb.
... The Obama administration entered office with a commitment to reduce the "numbers, roles and emphasis" associated with nuclear weapons and start the world on a "path to zero." Arms negotiations with Russia have restarted and there is renewed emphasis on non-proliferation measures such as test bans and controls on fissile material.
But at the same time, some planners, theorists in deterrence and military leaders are concerned that there is a new nuclear calculus that U.S. leadership's actions may not reflect. As John Hamre, former deputy Defense secretary and now president of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, puts it, "We [in the U.S.] don't think nuclear weapons are useful. We think they are dangerous. But most countries think they are useful."
Indeed they are. Vice Adm. Robert Harward, deputy commander of U.S. Joint Forces Command, reported on a five-day Joint Operating Environment war game held last November. It reflected some probabilities: That rising nuclear powers might be willing to use tactical nuclear weapons, and that both state and non-state actors "would not view nuclear weapons as a first resort, but might not see them as a last resort." The result: "The presence of nuclear weapons brought on operational paralysis."
Adds Frank Miller, a former arms policy official under the George W. Bush administration: "Iran and North Korea are not using nuclear weapons to deter U.S. nuclear weapons; they are using them to deter our conventional forces."
...
It is not only rogue states and new nuclear powers that are developing weapons. Russia and China, with all three "new nuke" states on its borders, have programs for delivery vehicles and new warheads. Later this year, France will become the first nation to publicly field a nuclear warhead--the TNA (airborne nuclear warhead) for the ASMP--A air-launched missile--that has been designed and developed without nuclear testing. The TNO oceanic warhead for the submarine-launched M51 follows next year.
...
U.S. Rethinks Nuclear Strategy | AVIATION WEEK
Sep 3, 2009
Bill Sweetman/Omaha, Neb.
... The Obama administration entered office with a commitment to reduce the "numbers, roles and emphasis" associated with nuclear weapons and start the world on a "path to zero." Arms negotiations with Russia have restarted and there is renewed emphasis on non-proliferation measures such as test bans and controls on fissile material.
But at the same time, some planners, theorists in deterrence and military leaders are concerned that there is a new nuclear calculus that U.S. leadership's actions may not reflect. As John Hamre, former deputy Defense secretary and now president of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, puts it, "We [in the U.S.] don't think nuclear weapons are useful. We think they are dangerous. But most countries think they are useful."
Indeed they are. Vice Adm. Robert Harward, deputy commander of U.S. Joint Forces Command, reported on a five-day Joint Operating Environment war game held last November. It reflected some probabilities: That rising nuclear powers might be willing to use tactical nuclear weapons, and that both state and non-state actors "would not view nuclear weapons as a first resort, but might not see them as a last resort." The result: "The presence of nuclear weapons brought on operational paralysis."
Adds Frank Miller, a former arms policy official under the George W. Bush administration: "Iran and North Korea are not using nuclear weapons to deter U.S. nuclear weapons; they are using them to deter our conventional forces."
...
It is not only rogue states and new nuclear powers that are developing weapons. Russia and China, with all three "new nuke" states on its borders, have programs for delivery vehicles and new warheads. Later this year, France will become the first nation to publicly field a nuclear warhead--the TNA (airborne nuclear warhead) for the ASMP--A air-launched missile--that has been designed and developed without nuclear testing. The TNO oceanic warhead for the submarine-launched M51 follows next year.
...
U.S. Rethinks Nuclear Strategy | AVIATION WEEK
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: bored
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the RAF did have nukes, what would it use to drop them?
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: bored
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Was there not some kind of British/French deterrent interface last year?
GR
GR
A combined Anglo-French deterrent would be a logical step. We are only twenty six miles apart so it is inconceivable that one partner could strike without involving the other. A combined deterrent would help safeguard two European seats on the UN Permanent Security Council.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: 59°45'36N 10°27'59E
Posts: 1,032
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Friends who have been on the fleet tell me that they regarded it as a suicide mission during the cold war.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Or Mick for the real big bang, but my point was that the force, apart from QRA, could have been eliminated long before weapons loading had begun.
Even if we had managed main force generation it could have been wiped out following an IRBM attack. At least the SSBN will only be vulnerable to a counter-strike after its missile launch.
Even if we had managed main force generation it could have been wiped out following an IRBM attack. At least the SSBN will only be vulnerable to a counter-strike after its missile launch.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
The Armée de l'Aire have an airborne nuclear deterrent on their Mirage 2000N fleet. Friends who have been on the fleet tell me that they regarded it as a suicide mission during the cold war.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: earth
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely as we extend further into the demise of this once great nation we have to stop acting as a world power and cut our coat according to the cloth.
If we act on the world stage as befits our global ranking we will stop creating nuclear armed enemies and become more akin to Switzerland than the USA.
As we reach that status we can scrap our expensive arms and live within our means.
If we act on the world stage as befits our global ranking we will stop creating nuclear armed enemies and become more akin to Switzerland than the USA.
As we reach that status we can scrap our expensive arms and live within our means.