Why did the RAF give up nuclear weapons...

[Pontius Navigator]

Exnomad, 520kts trumps a bomb bay every time.

Even the Buccaneer needed underwing pylons for its 'defensive aids suite'

[LowObservable]

Lightning/Genie?

rly?

[MAINJAFAD]

The nuke AD weapon was primarily designed to guarantee a kill against single high speed target at any aspect, not take out formations. The reason, the chances of the weapon actually hitting the target are very low and though the weapon would proximity fuze with a near miss, the target will outrun the resultant blast / fragment effects of the warhead (as what happened with Patriot against the Iraqi Al Hussians (Modified Scuds) in 1991. The Patriots warheads mostly detonated behind the target and did no damage). Try outrunning the effects of a low yield nuclear detonation. (Effective lethal blast effects of a 200 Lb HE warhead at 40,000ft were around a radius of 100 Ft. The kill radius by blast of the AIR-2 was ten times that and at 100 Ft the target is instant plasma as it's within the fireball) The other reason (the the case of the AIR-2) is most of the USAF interceptors in the era were fitted with AIM-4 which wasn't the most impressive weapon as regards reliability or 2.25 inch FFAR which wasn't the most impressive weapon as regards accuracy. Genie didn't suffer from either of those issues.

[MAINJAFAD]

For all personal wanting have a play at nuclear targeting, you may find this site a bit of fun.

NUKEMAP by Alex Wellerstein

Does weapon yield defaults from Davey Crockett to the full design yield of Tsar Bomba.

[Davef68]

Originally Posted by LowObservable

Lightning/Genie?

rly?

There is a closed file record in the National Archive

http://discovery.nationalarchives.go...ef=AIR+2/17341

There was a pic of the trial installation in Tim McClelland's book on the Lightning. The missile was carried in a recess built into the belly.

[MAINJAFAD]

Project Cancelled had an example of 2 AIR-2 on modified side pylons on the Lightning, though it is stated in the book that the intent was to only issue one per aircraft which would have most likely caused asymmetric problems. Totally academic as the defence council stopped all work on defensive UK nuclear weapons in 1960 due to lack of fissile material and decided that it would all be used for offensive stuff. Killed the Nuclear armed Bloodhound 3 as well.

[ricardian]

An interesting read

[glad rag]

Originally Posted by Exnomad

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.

[MAINJAFAD]

Originally Posted by Davef68

There is a closed file record in the National Archive

Lightning: air to air rocket (GENIE) | The National Archives

There was a pic of the trial installation in Tim McClelland's book on the Lightning. The missile was carried in a recess built into the belly.

Dave

The fact that the RAF could have got the Genie under Project E is covered in a meeting about Air Defence at the Defence Research Policy Committee in Oct 1958. (National Archives file AVIA 65/1547 - Air Defence of the UK). The text of the meeting below covers what was said at the time.

8. A defence in depth could be provided either by a fighter defence or by a long range guided weapon defence. We have no long range guided weapon project in our programme. The nearest American project of this kind is BOMARC which has had a very troublesome development-career and is by no means out of the wood yet. On the other hand, we have in the Lightning a very promising fighter and since, in any case, we must maintain some fighter component in the defence for as far ahead as we can see, it seems only sensible to make use of the work which has already been done on the Lightning. The Lightning, armed with FIRESTREAK, has an operational ceiling of about 50,000 feet and, in the electronic jamming conditions to be expected, will be capable of competing only with a subsonic bomber threat. It is, therefore, completely inadequate to meet the potential supersonic bomber threat in 1963, but as it has already attained a speed of Mach 1.9, it could cope with such a threat provided it was equipped with a collision course weapon system.

9. The Americans have indicated that they are prepared to make available on Project E term their nuclear headed collision course rocket GENIE. This weapon could be in service by 1962. It would make the Lightning capable of meeting Mach 2 bombers up to 65,000 feet. The development costs involved in fitting this weapon in the Lightning would be of the order of £2m.

[Less Hair]

Some german Tornados in their war role can carry US owned and controlled B61s stored in Germany if those weapons are released by the US President.

[glad rag]

Originally Posted by Less Hair

Some german Tornados in their war role can carry US owned and controlled B61s stored in Germany if those weapons are released by the US President.

And they had the facility to buddy refuel this greatly increasing the range of the aircraft...

[Less Hair]

Add one way routings or diversions on the way back to max out range and they are some serious asset.

[Shackman]

Apart from a very brief mention earlier in the thread, there were other nuclear weapons around such as for the maritime scenario. I even had one trialled in a Chinook one day to see if it would fit (it did), although i didn't fancy the dispatch and escape manoevres.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Originally Posted by Lordflasheart

Completely flummoxed by Mr Arbuthnot's words quoted from Hansard in Orac's post No 8 – Tried to get me 'ed around the idea of the Vigilant T.1 conducting 'sub-strategic' missions - Well it was a good lunch with the Major . Once I'd worked out Mr Arbuthnot was actually referring to a boat, I perked up, had a quick shufti at Orac's link to the Trident Modernisation (38 pp – full read later) and found this site – which helped me with 'sub-strategic' and might help the OP's task.

United Kingdom Nuclear Forces

BTW fantaman – will you be talking to work colleagues or the W.I or are you on a learned study course ?


LFH

I ran the latter part of the Vigilant T1 certification programme and can assure everybody, without fear of breaching the official secrets act, that it lacked a nuclear delivery capability.

G

[chevvron]

Originally Posted by fantaman

Afternoon all,




We didn’t replace the V force bombers as we had Tornado, which was reported to be inferior in terms of delivering nuclear weapons and no real replacement for The V force. Does anyone else think we need to look at another long range bomber? The US and Russia still do and they are forging ahead with replacement programmes?



Thanks

Martin

The TSR 2 was supposed to replace the V Force long before AFVG was resurrected as MRCA (Tornado).

[tornadoken]

RAF - alone - did not give up nukes.

From 23/5/63 "strategic" stores in Bomber Command joined all other nukes in UK hands to be under NATO/CENTO/SEATO targeting. BAOR then had nuclear-shell howitzers, SSMs, (from 10/70) MADM mountain movers; Coastal from 1/68 would have NDBs; to 15/8/63 Bomber Command SMF had Thor IRBM: all these were US-supplied; RAFG had US-, NEAF/FEAF had UK-built gravity Bombs, as did RN Strike carriers. (Bomber, then) Strike Command had Blue Steel ASM, UK warhead, to 21/12/70, and UK-built gravity Bombs.

NATO's N.Atlantic Council would tussle with "tactical" nukes: could they actually be used? 10/83 Montebello Decision removed MADMs and reduced howitzers. Through 1984/86 RAFG, RAF/UK, Luftwaffe and It.AF deployed IDS Tornado with "tactical" US B-61/UK WE177B/C; RN had WE177A in NDB and Bomb variants, and RAF Buccaneers for maritime strike. Nimrods lifted Mk.57 NDB from Macrihanish, St.Mawgan and Sigonella.

Berlin Wall comes down. 12/9/90-15/2/94 Nations make a series of Statements, Charters and Treaties, collectively "End of the Cold War": that is the precise A to OP's Q. BAOR's last nuclear howitzers and SSMs gone by 15/6/91; Nimrod NDBs by 11/91; RN WE177A(NDB), 21/3/92; RAF Buccaneer WE177A, 31/3/94; RAFG WE177C, 5/95; UK Tornado WE177B, 31/3/98.

It has been stated that Vanguard SSBNs, operational 15/12/94, carry warheads capable of sub-strategic (?100kt) yield and from 2011 of "bunker-buster" precision.

[TLB]

The reason, the chances of the weapon actually hitting the target are very low and though the weapon would proximity fuze with a near miss

Actually, the Genie was not supposed to hit the target. Rather, the steering solution was designed so the the warhead would explode slightly ahead of, and slightly below, the target's trajectory.

[Pontius Navigator]

@TLB, the target was also expected to be a formation of 3 or more similar perhaps to the B52 cells in Vietnam.

[chopper2004]

TLB

Was not that a Russian tactic too? In the late George Hall's book Top Gun (Presidio Press circa 1987) at the end chapter, discussing Warsaw Pact threats / tactics mentions the Viktor Belenko (Mig 25 defector 1976 then advisor to Top Gun) said once the 'CARPET' word /order issued in mass ACM between us and them - that a nuke would be detonated to wipe out the opposition fighters. He said unfortunately it would also wipe out some of his fighters but it was small price to pay,

cheers

[BEagle]

Researching the history of XH538, the Vulcan our crew used for Double Top Phase 2 and Giant Voice 1979, I discovered that it was once used for dummy Skybolt trials.

It looked pretty daunting carrying 2 missiles - each weighing 5000 kg with a 1.1 MT Red Snow warhead. If I recall correctly, the UK was going to field some 70+ Skybolts....

But then came MacNamara and eventually Polaris - and the RAF lost its strategic nuclear capability, with WE177 considered a 'tactical' weapon. Albeit in -B form, a pretty big one!