Why did the RAF give up nuclear weapons...
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Any invasion by one State against another, with conquest as the aim, is Strategic. Falklands War was a Strategic war fought at a tactical level.
Now there were potential conflicts where there was no Strategic (world) intent but such massive conventional assault that only tactical nukes could have stemmed the assault. At the time there was no realistic counter-force threat to the UK.
I think I can say that such a plan today would be unconscious. This leads on to the question, who exactly would HMG consider a valid target for a tactical strike?
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: England
Posts: 924
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pakistan test fires new cruise missile.
Pakistan test-fires new cruise missile Ra?ad ? The Express Tribune
Other countries like Pakistan now well on their way with miltary technology. Wonder if this will make its way into the wrong peoples hands? Presumably these are cheaper than ballistic missiles, easier to make and adapt for nuclear delivery?
Comments posted on the tribunes website make for very pessimistic reading for the future.
Other countries like Pakistan now well on their way with miltary technology. Wonder if this will make its way into the wrong peoples hands? Presumably these are cheaper than ballistic missiles, easier to make and adapt for nuclear delivery?
Comments posted on the tribunes website make for very pessimistic reading for the future.
Like most things post-Cold War/Peace Dividend, the over-riding factor was money.
I recall SRAM-T was one contender, but Bush senior cancelled that in 1991 (However it was still being offered to the UK) and there was joint work with the French on ASLP (Cancelled when we withdrew as they weren't prepared to fund it 100% themselves)
I recall SRAM-T was one contender, but Bush senior cancelled that in 1991 (However it was still being offered to the UK) and there was joint work with the French on ASLP (Cancelled when we withdrew as they weren't prepared to fund it 100% themselves)
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
One thing about the RAF tactical nukes not mentioned was their purpose.
Were they a deterrent against overwhelming conventional assault, against enemy use of nukes, or simply a weapon in the arsenal?
Against the Soviet Union the first two were undoubtedly true. Against a lower grade nuclear power or conventional client state such as Iraq under Sadam, were they credible?
As for nuclear depth bombs, their range was short so they would only be effective with an accurate attack. Modern torpedoes, in the 80s offered a better chance of a hit without the tactical consequences of the nuclear explosion.
Were they a deterrent against overwhelming conventional assault, against enemy use of nukes, or simply a weapon in the arsenal?
Against the Soviet Union the first two were undoubtedly true. Against a lower grade nuclear power or conventional client state such as Iraq under Sadam, were they credible?
As for nuclear depth bombs, their range was short so they would only be effective with an accurate attack. Modern torpedoes, in the 80s offered a better chance of a hit without the tactical consequences of the nuclear explosion.
Gen. Jim Cartwright was a huge fan of Conventional Prompt Global Strike. So were some people in Congress who funded CTM (Conventional Trident Modification), a single-warhead sorta-guided Trident RV. Most others, including almost all the nuclear weapon operators, thought the whole idea sucked donkey 
s and it was ditched as soon as Hoss left the scene. There are some remnants of it within OSD, but it is going nowhere.
s and it was ditched as soon as Hoss left the scene. There are some remnants of it within OSD, but it is going nowhere.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
AtG, that is very much a strategic issue that the RAF, AFAIK, has never professed to have. Launch on warning was the only option.
Tactical missions would only have been feasible if their bases survived the initial strike.
Tactical missions would only have been feasible if their bases survived the initial strike.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: uk
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I always was concerned about nuclear depth charges. Had visions of poor sailors rolling then off the back of the boat and some Captain in his best Michael Chaine voice quoting things from the Italian Job.
Read somewhere about nuclear tipped air to air missiles.
One I would love to have had a go with would have been the nuclear hand grenade!
Read somewhere about nuclear tipped air to air missiles.
One I would love to have had a go with would have been the nuclear hand grenade!
My take on tactical nuclear weapon….
…heavily caveated by letting you know that I was never involved in targeting or employment of such.
To my mind a use for a 'tactical' nuclear weapon (e.g. WE177 or Lance) in the Cold War scenario was to employ it/them against a WP operational manoeuvre group that had penetrated NATO territory to great depth. The aim of their use being to 1. stop the OMG, 2. signal a step up in the well known flexible response policy, whilst 3. limiting the strike to the OMG on NATO territory as opposed to a target on WP (especially Soviet) territory. And finally, 4.signalling that further escalation was still possible by extending targets to WP/Soviet territory (which I would understand to be strategic in nature).
Once such a Cold War/WP scenario had gone, the potential targets or opportunity to use a tactical nuclear weapon went too. Add the cost of ownership (sy, trg, ring fencing delivery a/c etc) vs any potential residual benefit, and such weapons lost their role in UK inventory.
Hope that helps.
Regards
Batco
To my mind a use for a 'tactical' nuclear weapon (e.g. WE177 or Lance) in the Cold War scenario was to employ it/them against a WP operational manoeuvre group that had penetrated NATO territory to great depth. The aim of their use being to 1. stop the OMG, 2. signal a step up in the well known flexible response policy, whilst 3. limiting the strike to the OMG on NATO territory as opposed to a target on WP (especially Soviet) territory. And finally, 4.signalling that further escalation was still possible by extending targets to WP/Soviet territory (which I would understand to be strategic in nature).
Once such a Cold War/WP scenario had gone, the potential targets or opportunity to use a tactical nuclear weapon went too. Add the cost of ownership (sy, trg, ring fencing delivery a/c etc) vs any potential residual benefit, and such weapons lost their role in UK inventory.
Hope that helps.
Regards
Batco
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Lancing, Sussex
Age: 92
Posts: 255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WE 177 etc
I worked on the cariage systems for Nukes, incl WE177 working with RAE in te late 60s.
Canberra and Buccaneer were so equiped as well as V Bombers
RN choppers were equipped for Nukes as well.
No prospect for RAF without V bomber or B52 equivalent.
Canberra and Buccaneer were so equiped as well as V Bombers
RN choppers were equipped for Nukes as well.
No prospect for RAF without V bomber or B52 equivalent.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Batco, I think one of our NATO allies would not have been thrilled with your plan. While it was certainly a plan to use atomic demolition mines, Blue Peacock, which would have been on the west of the IGB the preferred option was to strike WPC airfields and second echelon forces while doing what was possible to stem the initial assault by conventional means.
Last edited by Pontius Navigator; 8th Sep 2016 at 15:55.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Exnomad, you are correct that a free-fall WE177 or its replacement would need a bomber, the Tornado is one such platform. The F35 could do the job too.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Can't see ORACs link but the F102/106 could have used the Genie, rather good for disrupting a bomber cell.
In the early 50s SAC had planned for mutually supporting bomber groups with only some aircraft being bomb carriers. It wad no doubt believed that the Russians would use a similar cell tactic.
In the early 50s SAC had planned for mutually supporting bomber groups with only some aircraft being bomb carriers. It wad no doubt believed that the Russians would use a similar cell tactic.
Ah, the AIR-2 Genie. Finally AD gets to join the Not F#cking About Club !
There's one in the museum at Omaha (slobber, drool, idiot grin)
The CF101 Voodoo could carry 2 Genies, and stood QRA with it from '65 to '84
There's one in the museum at Omaha (slobber, drool, idiot grin)
The CF101 Voodoo could carry 2 Genies, and stood QRA with it from '65 to '84
I worked on the cariage systems for Nukes, incl WE177 working with RAE in te late 60s.
Canberra and Buccaneer were so equiped as well as V Bombers
RN choppers were equipped for Nukes as well.
No prospect for RAF without V bomber or B52 equivalent.
Canberra and Buccaneer were so equiped as well as V Bombers
RN choppers were equipped for Nukes as well.
No prospect for RAF without V bomber or B52 equivalent.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Lancing, Sussex
Age: 92
Posts: 255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RAF Weapon carriage
Tornado could have carried WE177 or equiv, but Buccaneer, V bombers and Canberra were the last with internal store carriage.
The performance of Aircraft with multiple external stores is heavily degraded, their survival during an interdiction would be doubtful.
The performance of Aircraft with multiple external stores is heavily degraded, their survival during an interdiction would be doubtful.