Labour plan for airborne deterrent?
Thread Starter
Labour plan for airborne deterrent?
In the Daily Mail today, evidently Labour are looking at replacing Trident with an airborne deterrent once again. The suggestion being about 135 F-35Cs launched from air bases on land and the Carriers?
Personally, I understand the carriers to be out of the question for the F-35C!
Also, nice idea as it sounds to someone with an aviation bias I'm sure nobody can regard it as a step in the right direction regarding the stealth argument in favour of the Submarine!?
Lib Dems also keen on the idea.
FB
Personally, I understand the carriers to be out of the question for the F-35C!
Also, nice idea as it sounds to someone with an aviation bias I'm sure nobody can regard it as a step in the right direction regarding the stealth argument in favour of the Submarine!?
Lib Dems also keen on the idea.
FB
They've probably re-read that half-witted piece by the LibDem think tank who proposed this a year ago.
More holes in it than a 70s string vest.......and comprehensively demolished last time it was raised.
More holes in it than a 70s string vest.......and comprehensively demolished last time it was raised.
I have to wonder why Labour would want to propose any future nuclear capability when leader has already told the world he would never use it. Perhaps they feel that replacing the very robust submarine based system with a much more vulnerable airborne one would reduce the effectiveness so much that it wouldn't matter if anyone did decide to order nuclear release.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: England
Posts: 908
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stick some silos on Diego Garcia so we can posture about ending the world, whilst being then actually able to equip the Air Force and carriers with suitable airframes and support vessels.
Seems like the perfect compromise to me. Half the committee say we shouldn't have a deterrent; other half say we should; no-one willing to budge. Only way to resolve the impasse is to meet halfway. We spend less money, still have a deterrent, surely everyone will be satisfied?
Chairman of the committee says he won't use it anyway, so no need to waste time with trivial discussions about whether or not it will work...
Chairman of the committee says he won't use it anyway, so no need to waste time with trivial discussions about whether or not it will work...
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's a pity we did not have this forum back when the nuclear deterrent passed from the RAF to the Navy.
The discussion would have been very interesting with both party's defending their respective corners !
The discussion would have been very interesting with both party's defending their respective corners !
"Mildly" Eccentric Stardriver
I may be missing something, but I understood that the main reason for moving from the V-force to Polaris was that a ballistic missile would get through the defences, when the various air-launched ones wouldn't. Has the scenario changed?
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Herod indeed, although we felt a distinct let down when the RN took over the deterrent as it was without ceremony and anti-climatic, all that actually happened was 7 QRA aircraft were replaced by 16 missiles. The 56 Vulcans remained available. Later 16 deployed to Cyprus with 40 remaining in UK.
We now recognised the significant improvement in our chances if we were following our own missile attacks.
We now recognised the significant improvement in our chances if we were following our own missile attacks.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The one and only advantage I see is that the airborne deterrent can be used for countless other military tasks while the sub deterrent can be used only for the one.
But the vulnerabilities and other problems brought by this solution would seem to far outweigh it's one advantage.
But the vulnerabilities and other problems brought by this solution would seem to far outweigh it's one advantage.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,892
Received 2,832 Likes
on
1,210 Posts
Labour have a plan?
OAP
OAP
Yes, to lose the next election
Thread Starter
What I find unrealistic about what they claim is; if they intend the to use the F-35C to carry some form of nuclear weapon and to deploy it on carriers, after all it is a carrier purpose aircraft, just which carriers do they intend to use? Or is the money (not much) saved from the Trident replacement programme, already under way by 2020, to be used to build a couple more carriers with angle decks, cat and trap next time? Because, as I'm sure you are all thoroughly aware on this forum, the two currently nearing completion, in one case having the final licks of Battleship grey applied to the Captain's cabin, aint going to be able to operate the F-35C! Or am I wrong and they just aren't the most suitable platform?
FB
FB
I thought the advantage of a submarine is that it is hidden and difficult to detect/target.
Isn't an aircraft carrier a bit, well, obvious and easy to hit?
Isn't an aircraft carrier a bit, well, obvious and easy to hit?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 1,873
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, you have a large group of other boats to keep the enemy away from your big boat.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
With no stealthy tankers in existence, that would give us a capability against targets within 600nm of the UK or a coastline. Worrying for Berlin and Washington, but likely to bring a smile to the face of Mr Putin in Moscow.
Mind you, probably fits in with Jeremy's list of enemies and target list....
Mind you, probably fits in with Jeremy's list of enemies and target list....
