Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Four submarines...

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Four submarines...

Old 9th May 2015, 22:00
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 94
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Anyone know the economic benefit to Scotland of having the nuke boats up there, and the consequent downside of removing them south
In all honesty, who cares?
Willard Whyte is offline  
Old 9th May 2015, 22:23
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tarn et Garonne, Southwest France
Posts: 5,318
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I'm with you, Willard. But looking forward to seeing these Military Aviation submarines. There must be some Navy forums around somewhere, surely.
Courtney Mil is offline  
Old 9th May 2015, 22:36
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 94
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I think one has to allow for the ebb and flow of conversations - which is in effect what a forum of this type is.

Can't really delete everything that veres off-topic. All good stuff.
Willard Whyte is offline  
Old 10th May 2015, 03:04
  #24 (permalink)  
Danny42C
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
".......And heard great Argument
About it and About. But ever I came
Out by that Same Door Wherein I Went.....(Fitzgerald: The Rubaiyat of Omar Khyyam).

There is a simple way to look at this "great Argument", which has rumbled on for the last 70 years:

If, in August 1945, the Allies had known that Japan had developed a nuclear weapon, and a credible means of delivery to the W. Coast of the US, would Truman have authorised the use of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs ?

What's your answer ? And if is put in rebuttal that Truman was a trigger-happy madman, anyway, then consider that he also refused MacArthur's request to end the Korean war the same way, and in fact dismissed him from that Command.

Last edited by Danny42C; 10th May 2015 at 03:22. Reason: Revision
 
Old 10th May 2015, 09:51
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: The Roman Empire
Posts: 2,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
WEBF,

Always did wonder what planet you live on......
Biggus is offline  
Old 10th May 2015, 22:37
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Scotland
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Wicked Willie White.......who cares you asked.
I do and many of the thousands who work and live here. As I said on the Independance thread last year
I live in the area and if I were younger and not retired I'd be very afraid. Beautiful 5 bed listed houses in half an acre plus, 60mins from Glasgow with fantastic sea views are selling for 280k.
The SNP will kill this area just to taste power
However I assume your comment was tongue in cheek not thumb up bum!
Romeo Oscar Golf is offline  
Old 10th May 2015, 22:51
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tarn et Garonne, Southwest France
Posts: 5,318
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Ah, why didn't I wonder if this thread would degenerate into another SNP anti-nuclear rant?

Save it, please. You're not going to convince anyone here and even if you did it ain't going to change anything.

Try it on Jet Blast, you might have some luck there.
Courtney Mil is offline  
Old 10th May 2015, 23:08
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 94
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I assume your comment was tongue in cheek not thumb up bum
'Tis rarely anything but(t)...


Although right now I'm quite happy for anything economically beneficial to be as far doon sooth as possible.
Willard Whyte is offline  
Old 10th May 2015, 23:37
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Scotland
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
degenerate into another SNP anti-nuclear rant?
Hardly a rant CM. Simply answering Willards (tongue in cheek) question.
As I said I'm long since retired and have no intentions of selling up. So apart from my kids getting very little from my estate, I couldn't give a toss where the submarines are based.
Romeo Oscar Golf is offline  
Old 11th May 2015, 09:47
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 3,680
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
How do you know there are 4 boats?

There might be 6...........................................
Thomas coupling is offline  
Old 13th May 2015, 00:21
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Devon
Posts: 2,731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Biggus

I live in the world where:

1. 55% of Scottish voters voted NO in September - despite a lacklustre NO campaign and the fact the word 'Yes' is seen as positive.

2. It seems that last week only 35% of possible voters (either for or against the SNP) voted for them (less than the number voted Yes in the referendum), however, this was enough to win seats given the collapse of Labour/Lib Dem support. The Scottish parliament has proportional representation so those elections will perhaps be more revealing - the Scottish Conservatives have many more MSPs than MPs.

In September 44.7% of an 84.6% turn out was 37.8% of possible votes. See for yourself.

Surely a PR system would take account of turn out?

3. Five years is a long term in politics. With so many SNP MPs, it will be hard to blame things on the Westminster parties, and the black Gold from the North Sea is running out.

Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 13th May 2015 at 00:41.
WE Branch Fanatic is offline  
Old 13th May 2015, 01:10
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tarn et Garonne, Southwest France
Posts: 5,318
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by WEBF
Surely a PR system would take account of turn out?
I thought we voted on the voting issue four years ago. A resounding NO by 67% to 30 something? We can't keep on having referenda and votes on everything just because some people didn't like the result the last time we did it. All done now.
Courtney Mil is offline  
Old 13th May 2015, 08:22
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: The Roman Empire
Posts: 2,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
So, as I thought, you live neither in the real world - nor in Scotland.

Watch and learn, starting with the 2016 Scottish elections....
Biggus is offline  
Old 15th May 2015, 20:42
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Devon
Posts: 2,731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Courtney
We can't keep on having referenda and votes on everything just because some people didn't like the result the last time we did it. All done now.
Tell the SNP! And Biggus. In a referendum the number of votes is what counts, in a General Election it is the number of seats.

Also - There was no rise in Scottish nationalism: Understanding the SNP victory

It is a mistake, committed by many, to equate a substantial SNP vote with an alleged rise in nationalism or nationalist sentiment in Scotland, argues Jan Eichhorn (@eichhorn_jan). The evidence indicates the contrary: data from the Scottish Social Attitudes Survey suggests that fewer people emphasise their Scottish national identity distinctively.

The 2015 general election will be memorable for many reasons, a key one being the remarkable victory of the SNP gaining 56 of 59 seats in Scotland (increasing their share dramatically from just 6 seats in 2010). Naturally, such a landslide attracts the focus of journalists, commentators and politicians who aim to assess the outcome of the election. Since the exit polls closed a lot of people have tried to make sense of what happened in Scotland. Unfortunately a lot of them made statements that have to be rejected as simply inaccurate.

It is a mistake, committed by many, to equate a substantial SNP vote with an alleged rise in nationalism or nationalist sentiment in Scotland. It may seem a plausible assumption to engage with (if you do not understand the attitudes of the Scottish electorate), but it cannot be supported by any empirical evidence. To the contrary: the best evidence we have to give us a long term perspective, data from the high-quality, face-to-face Scottish Social Attitudes Survey (SSA) suggests that, if anything, fewer people than before emphasise their Scottish national identity distinctively.


Later....summing up:

Crucially, commentators need to stop painting a picture in which the majority of Scotland predominantly base their political decision making mostly on their national identity. There has been no rise in nationalistic sentiment in Scotland. As we (amongst others) have repeatedly shown in our research, the strongest determinants of both independence and SNP support were pragmatic evaluations about economic prospects, trustworthiness and political personnel. For most people in Scotland the SNP is a normal party, that they like, hate or are indifferent to, but those evaluations for most are based on whether people agree with their policies and how they evaluate their representation.

If commentators want to understand why the SNP is successful, they need to make a greater effort at properly understanding how public attitudes are formed in Scotland. Suggesting that it is down to sentiment is lazy at best, but actually misrepresenting the majority of Scottish voters. For political parties trying to challenge the SNP, first and foremost Scottish Labour, a similar message applies: to have a chance of engaging them successfully, they need to stop focusing mostly on high-level questions about different types of nationality. Instead they need to challenge the SNP on concrete policy debates around issues that affect people’s lives and which voters in Scotland are much more likely to base their votes on than identity-driven arguments.


Turning to the issue of SSBNs and their replacements, you may find this informative:

The Continuing Role of Strategic Deterrence and How the United States Navy Meets the Demands

For the SWS, the Navy is working to ensure both the shipboard systems and the flight hardware will be ready to deploy aboard OHIO Replacement. To do this, the Navy has developed a shipboard integration program. By 2020, each of the shipboard sub-systems on the current OHIO Class submarines, such as fire control, navigation, and the launcher, will be refreshed. This shipboard system configuration will serve as the initial configuration for OHIO Replacement.

Concurrent with the shipboard integration program, the Trident II D5 Life Extension (D5 LE) program will ensure the missile systems maintain their effectiveness. The Trident II D5 – and its five predecessors are more than just a missile. It is a complex system composed of solid rocket motors, numerous electronic packages, a guidance system, and reentry bodies. As the overall system ages, each of these subsystems presents their own unique challenges in regards to life extension and modernization. However, the Trident II D5 is a proven system. To date there have been 150 successful test flights. Rather than develop a new missile system, it was proven to be more cost-effective to replace components that were reaching or had reached obsolescence. The D5 LE will provide the additional missile assets needed to extend the service life of the weapon system.

One key benefit of the D5 LE is that the Navy can avoid developing an upgraded or new weapon system at the same time we are building a new class of submarine. That will reduce the cost and design risk of the OHIO Replacement, but this also means that the Trident II D5 will last more than twice as long as any previous missile system – more than 50 years (Trident I C4 was in service for 24 years).

For the first time, the Navy is building the missile compartment in a series of four-tube quad packs that will be used not only on the OHIO Replacement, but also aboard the United Kingdom’s SUCCESSOR SSBN through the 1963 Polaris Sales Agreement. SUCCESSOR is scheduled to achieve initial operating capability before OHIO Replacement. This will be the first time that the United Kingdom is purchasing a deterrent system that has not already been deployed or tested by the United States.
WE Branch Fanatic is offline  
Old 13th Jun 2017, 22:46
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Devon
Posts: 2,731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Biggus View Post
So, as I thought, you live neither in the real world - nor in Scotland.

Watch and learn, starting with the 2016 Scottish elections....
Well, in the 2017 General Election the SNP took a kicking. The three main UK wide parties made gains. In fact if it was not for the Scots, we would now have a Prime Minister who is a CND member.
WE Branch Fanatic is offline  
Old 14th Jun 2017, 06:38
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: The EU
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by WE Branch Fanatic View Post
Well, in the 2017 General Election the SNP took a kicking. The three main UK wide parties made gains. In fact if it was not for the Scots, we would now have a Prime Minister who is a CND member.
Your first and final sentences are complete nonsense.
Balgowan is offline  
Old 14th Jun 2017, 15:23
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 63
Posts: 6,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Military Aviation is related to submarines in that they are something some military aviators hunt, they are military boats, and we sometimes have to work with them during ops in one way or another.


I am not so sure how mil aviation is related to subs and the SNP's success or failure in recent elections, but since some of the RN's subs are based in Scotland, I suppose the thread can be followed back ...
This will be the first time that the United Kingdom is purchasing a deterrent system that has not already been deployed or tested by the United States
Nice job.
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 14th Jun 2017, 16:21
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: North Up
Posts: 489
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
If, in August 1945, the Allies had known that Japan had developed a nuclear weapon, and a credible means of delivery to the W. Coast of the US, would Truman have authorised the use of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs ?
Yes. He would have used nukes to obliterate the Jap(anese) nukes.

Never forget that Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't perpetrated to terrorise the Japanese. They were ready to surrender already and the only two sticking points in the "unconditional" surrender were that they insisted on keeping the Emperor after the surrender and they insisted on retaining the Imperial Japanese flag as their naval ensign.

The nuke strikes were to terrorise the Russians, not the Japanese. The presumption was that Commies were too stoopid to devise a "deterrent" of their own.
Cazalet33 is offline  
Old 15th Jun 2017, 13:27
  #39 (permalink)  
Cunning Artificer
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The spiritual home of DeHavilland
Age: 75
Posts: 3,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I'm all for a Trident replacement,
Me too.

Twenty Medium Bomber squadrons ought to do it

The grand old Vulcan was pretty stealthy too, if I remember correctly, though not by design...
Blacksheep is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2022 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.