Labour plan for airborne deterrent?
HTP is funny stuff. Clearly it can be dangerous; but with proper handling it remains inert (nonflammable and noncryogenic). The Swedes have been using HTP in torpedoes for yonks, I believe.
LO, the Germans were working on HTP powered U-Boats for submerged dash capability; can't recollect if we or the USA did similar.
Frightens me just to think of it; give me a 600psi 600F superheat Babcock boiler any time - not in a sub, of course
Frightens me just to think of it; give me a 600psi 600F superheat Babcock boiler any time - not in a sub, of course
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's an amazing book - just finished it - how in Gods name did they get clearance for it?
What interested me was his point that Successor will be the first time the RN has built a nuclear submarine in advance of the equivalent USN boat - as they say "development challenges are a real issue......"
An air based deterrent is of course vulnerable to a first strike. Largely, this was the reason for the switch to SSBN in the first place? A SSBN is not vulnerable to a first strike - at the minute?
UK got Polaris as a result of the Nassau Agreement in 1962 because it was the only option technically feasible at the time after both Blue Streak and Skybolt were cancelled.
Had it not been for the "special relationship" between the US / UK, and if Macmillan had not been successful in securing that deal, the UK's ambition to retain an independent nuclear deterrent would have been screwed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nassau_Agreement
In terms of special treatment, the same could be said of the US allowing the UK to buy into RIVET JOINT - no other immediate options there either.
Had it not been for the "special relationship" between the US / UK, and if Macmillan had not been successful in securing that deal, the UK's ambition to retain an independent nuclear deterrent would have been screwed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nassau_Agreement
In terms of special treatment, the same could be said of the US allowing the UK to buy into RIVET JOINT - no other immediate options there either.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
It would be interesting to speculate where we would have gone had we started with Skybolt.
There had been a trial for airborne QRA with at least one Vulcan 1. It was only affordable during times of crisis - crew numbers, airframes, bombs, tankers etc made it hugely expensive so, compared with an SSBN, there was no way we could have maintained an 8-aircraft airborne deterrent as the SAC did.
Supposing we had gone Skybolt, would we have then adopted a different platform come 1980 with the Vulcan running out of life? Would the Vulcan have carried on another 10 years without the low level fatigue issue?
4 VC10 with 4 missiles each?
Thence Airbus?
There had been a trial for airborne QRA with at least one Vulcan 1. It was only affordable during times of crisis - crew numbers, airframes, bombs, tankers etc made it hugely expensive so, compared with an SSBN, there was no way we could have maintained an 8-aircraft airborne deterrent as the SAC did.
Supposing we had gone Skybolt, would we have then adopted a different platform come 1980 with the Vulcan running out of life? Would the Vulcan have carried on another 10 years without the low level fatigue issue?
4 VC10 with 4 missiles each?
Thence Airbus?
I'm sure you know PN, but the VC-10 was considered as a launch platform for Skybolt, as were several other types at the time according to 'Vulcan's Hammer' by Chris Gibson.
The Vulcan B3 was meant as an Airborne Alert aircraft, carrying Skybolt too. Pity that one never got of the drawing board. Upgraded engines with reheat. Bigger crew compartment (spare crew as well) all in ejection seats.
Haven't read the book for a while but pretty sure this is all correct.
The Vulcan B3 was meant as an Airborne Alert aircraft, carrying Skybolt too. Pity that one never got of the drawing board. Upgraded engines with reheat. Bigger crew compartment (spare crew as well) all in ejection seats.
Haven't read the book for a while but pretty sure this is all correct.
Chris Gibson also covered a number of VC10 variants that were examined at times, in more or less greater depth, in a short book "Vickers VC10 - AEW, Pofflers and other unbuilt variants," published in 2009. (He even attempts a derivation for 'Poffler,' seemingly used for the projected ALBM Carrier!) Carriage of up to 8 Skybolt missiles was envisaged, and the cover shows such an aircraft in 617 Sqn guise starting its takeoff roll. Alternatives carrying ramjet missiles were also explored.
