Nuclear Deterrent
 

there is a little banner at the top of my screen that said i hadn't contributed recently. It encouraged me to ask a question so blame the banner for this:

bored the other day i was thinking about the monumental cost of trident replacement and the probability it may not happen. I understand the basics of the historic transition of the strategic nuclear deterrent from the air force to sub surface forces and the way in which they can be deployed.

as a potential cost saving measure could defence realistically look at our nuclear deterrent being retained by the RAF rather than by subs? we have already considered the prospect of having no nuclear deterrent in a different thread so would this be a happy medium? there are obvious technical challenges to this and i am not naive to the huge implications of operating a nuclear capable aircraft.

not intending to break any opsec here, just general chit chat

H-u-L

Well, to my, fairly simple, mind, given the word GO, the Navy could have a nuke on target in a time measured in minutes, whereas how long would it take the RAF to get to the target.

No slight intended to the RAF.

As the nuclear sub is maintaining a silent almost stationary routine it is virtually impossible to detect. It is therefore much more effective than any land based solution.

Detect by whom? Deter whom? Retaliate how quickly?

If we are to deter 1st rank countries that have capable defensive forces then an SSBN would appear the better option as it can avoid detection and it has penetration ability and penetration aids. At the moment the ICBM has the best chance of reaching any target.

If a SLCM was selected instead of an ICBM then a case could be made for ALCM instead as SLCM has limited range and therefore limited reach in a given time scale although an air-breather is vulnerable to an air defence system.

Against a 3rd rank country you could use an IRBM from a tramp steamer.

When the Navys deterrent weapon is 50 miles from is target, can it be recalled if a breakthrough is reached?

Well lets buy some of those then.

I don't fancy living on this tiny island if we end up exchanging nukes with the Russians etc anyway, so why even consider something irrelevent like the cost.

Silo a few of the things in Diego Garcia, and lets spend more time trying to be nice and friendly as opposed to some Victorian expeditionary superpower.

You would seem to miss the point of deterance. If the missles are launched then the subs mission is a failure. The point is Russia, China or any other country with Nuclear weapons will not launch at the UK because the UK will then fire back and remove said country from the face of the earth hence they won't dare!:ugh:

Also once the V-Force passed the Go-No Go line after recieving the go code they would not turn back no matter what radio messages were recieved. So you can't re call a bomber either.

And if we launched an airforce plane, we would have to hope there were no clouds in the sky the day we needed to attack!

:E

(hat on incoming)

TMTQ

I seem to recall, that we had the all seeing Radar eye of NBS for that.

Not so sure we (RAF) had a Go/No Go Line did we? Or was it the upwind runway threshold?
(Hmm, why would you be sorting the wheat from the chaff on the active?)

Gainsy, in a jokey way you are right. In reality it was 8 deg east for UK based aircraft.

"Vulcan Units of the Cold War" pp16

I fail to understand the need for an updated ICBM missile system that supersedes 'Polaris' Why? Even with our current nuke (submarine) system of defence, Mr. Brown :uhoh: can't enter the codes and launch without the ok of the US President.:ugh:

Lets get our (home grown nukes) back to the RAF. No ties with the US. If the UK wants to go alone, all the better.

I always thought the advantage of a sub-surface system was the alility to be anywhere off of the UK almost completely undetectable, preventing the enemy from taking our system out so they can use their system? The subs have had a continuous 50 year patrol and at anytime there is at least one of the four (three yet?) patrolling UK waters.

Surely this type of continued detterance and secrecy is less achievable by air means?

dazdaz,

Wrong on SO many counts!

Apart from the fact that it has been Trident for many a year, it can be fired without any non UK involvement, certainly without the involvement of the latest winner of the Nobel Peace Prize.

If the RAF did have nukes, what would it use to drop them?

I suppose you could strap one on a Tornado at Marham and go and 'brighten up somebody's day' in Norwich.

When the Americans developed their nuclear deterrent it was argued that - for an effective deterrent - they needed ICBMs in land-based silos, submarine-based missiles and air-launched missiles/bombs. That suited the cold war threat.

The RAF lost its nukes as a result of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaties. If the RAF didn't need nukes in 1995 and if the Cold War is over, why does the UK need a fleet of submarine-launched nukes? What is the current nuclear threat? Which country is likely to launch a nuclear strike against the UK?

Given that the present government (and the next government) will probably make drastic defence cuts, does that nuclear threat take priority over national air defence or equipping other forces adequately? (and I'm thinking particularly of those soldiers currently deployed.)

The UK does not have the force levels (or the equipment) to use nuclear weapons as a part of an independent 'flexible response'. In the event that the UK was to declare war on another country, it has neither the forces nor equipment to fill the gap between the initial stages of the conflict - send in the Army - and all-out nuclear war.

Submarine-launched missiles make sense as a part of the UK's contribution to NATO, but if the UK can't afford to spend the necessary money on the other sectors of defence and if the UK must make drastic cuts, then surely eliminating the Trident fleet would provide savings to offset against the next government's cuts without emasculating the remainder of the UK armed forces?

If the UK did scrap Trident-armed submarines, then no doubt there would be an outcry from other NATO members. The US contributes handsomely, but the other NATO members might then find that they had to dig deeper into their own pockets to provide funds to make up the difference.

If the UK wishes to maintain a 'tripwire' nuclear deterrent, wouldn't it be far cheaper to establish one or two geographically-separated silos loaded with ICBMs on land?

Manuel de Vol
 

The UK had nothing to do with any of the nuclear arms reduction treaties. START, SALT etc are signed between the US and Russia.

House of Commons Hansard Written Answers for 13 Dec 1995 (pt 19)

'WE177 Free-fall Bomb

Mr. Foulkes: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration led to the decision to withdraw the WE.177 in 1998; what was the original date for withdrawal; and on what date that decision was taken. [5165]

Mr. Arbuthnot: The decision to withdraw WE177 from service by the end of 1998, announced on 4 April 1995, Official Report, column 1097, was reached in the light of the good progress being made in providing Trident with a sub-strategic capability. This capability will be fully robust when Vigilant enters service in 1998 and there is no requirement for us to maintain two systems in the sub-strategic role after that point. We had previously assessed that WE177 had the potential to remain in service until the early years of the next century.'

See SALT and other links to START/SORT

Strategic Arms Limitation Talks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

TJ

The UK does not need a Nuclear weapon.


I suggest we take all that we have left, point them somewhere hot and sandy, and let them go.

no nukes, no problem.:ok:

Manuel de Vol wrote

Correct on the Tornado. The Tornado was the last assigned delivery platform for the WE177.

nuclear-weapons.info

nuclear-weapons.info

The Tornado was also assigned a nuclear role (US controlled free-fall bombs) by Germany and Italy. Belgium, Netherlands, Turkey and Greece utilised the F-16.

TJ

TEEJ said:
"The UK had nothing to do with any of the nuclear arms reduction treaties. START, SALT etc are signed between the US and Russia."

Indeed, but the WE-177 armed aircraft were assigned to NATO in the event of war. The Russians and the Americans may have negotiated and signed the treaties and I can't comment on whether or not the Russians included the other WP countries in their discussions, but I would be very surprised if SACEUR and his political masters failed to consider the UK's WE-177s or to discuss their removal from service with the British government.