Correct Nutloose

IIRC EVERY simulated war game in Europe in Warsaw Pact days showed that after first use of a Tactical N Weapon you had 24-48 hours before the whole shebang of ICBM's etc broke loose

Aircarft are a lot easier to intercept than an ICBM- you just can't be sure a small number of RAF N bombers would get through any more

Hi Mike (Rondot),

Great picture of the dear old Jag but I did have a wry smile at the stores configuration depicted; precisely where does the bomb go?!

Best regards

L

You could always chuck the outboard pylons on and fit them on that :)

If they were serious about reducing the cost whilst maintaining a credible nuclear force then the answer is nuclear capable TLAM's on the Astute class and not sticking them on a fast jet base somewhere.
I would actually like to see this option and get rid of the Trident replacement idea completely.

"Jimlad, I have no idea, I haven't done a full appraisal or a costing exercise. Nor could I. I was neither supporting nor dismissing the idea, simply remarking that the savings could be redistributed and I happen to THINK that there would still be a lot of change left over. As an afterthought, it might also solve the problem of where to put the bombs after the UK is kicked out of Scotla"

Courtney - if you dig around a little you'll find the HMG paper on this and nuclearising TLAM from a few years ago. The basic research done showed very quickly that going down either the RAF airborne deterrent, or the TLAM on an SSN route was vastly more expensive and wouldnt have the same guarantee of success as the SSBN/ICBM combination. Believe me when I say its been looked at, the sums have been done, and each time Trident emerges as the value for money option no matter how you look at it.

As for TLAM - again, not a runner because there is no nuclear TLAM in service, we'd have to pay full development and manufacture costs as the USN doesnt want it anymore, and that gets horribly expensive. Thats before you get into the issue of deterrence policy and how you'd cope in a crisis with lots of SSN going to sea and how this may actually escalate matters. Again looked at regularly and regularly proven to be a non runner in terms of costs.

I am interested in why if a submarine based ICBM is the only really guaranteed deterrent vehicle, that the French have both missile submarines and an airborne nuclear strike capability. Which country has missed a trick?

Hi Lomcevak

The WE177 went on the centreline pylon, where that 1200lt fuel tank is. The three-tank fit was very unusual and rarely fitted. It was shown many times that the Jaguar used most of the fuel in the tank to carry it, especially if the ODM figures were used for cruise.

Yup, on a SWDERU mounted to the pylon.

Yep, thank you for all that. If you read my post fully you would see that I carefully stated that I was not getting into the well versed arguments about the whole business of the deterent. I clearly was not advocating the move to aircraft carried deterrent. I never mentioned nuclearising TLAM, I made no mention of success. If I offered any opinion about how aircraft carried deterent might work, I think you will find I mentioned an extant French system - a hypothetical suggestion that occurred to me from reading article. An option that has not been costed.

As I said, even mentioning removing this role from the RN always results in outrage.

To be clear, I expressed opinions on the article posted. My views on the wider UK deterent issue were not expressed.

PG, I would guess that an aircraft deterrent would enable a visible show of force that could be both launched and recalled with the submarine as a secure backup and second strike system.

Before the RN deterrent the V-Force could be launched but if it was recalled the entire deterrent would have been shot for between 4 and 6 hours while a smaller proportion of the first launch was recovered, turn round and recocked. The Blue Steel systems might have been down for 3 days or more.

Courtney - I'm not trying to get into an argument here, merely pointing out that you raised some questions about how you thought it would save money and I've directed you as to where you can find answers.

TLAM reference was for another poster.

Its not cheaper, it will never be cheaper and it makes no sense to reinvent a perfectly good wheel in the form of something that we'll spend billions more to do less than we can do now.

No. The RAF era has gone and it will never return.

Hangarshuffle, a predictable and well reasoned statement. And I really don't think you have to worry. It won't happen so sleep tight.

It's just a discussion about an an interesting article.

Everything to do with nuclear weapons - design, engineering, support, maintenance, retirement, manpower - is frighteningly expensive. When it came with its own pot of money there was a certain attraction in owning it, now it has to be paid from the same money box the costs involved impinge upon all other programmes.

The RAF is en-route since 1991 to shrink from 30 FJ squadrons to 6, with concomitant manpower; the RN has in the same period seen the FFG/DDG fleet shrink from around 50 to 20 and the attack sub fleet from 25 to 7 - now manning and equipping the carriers will put even more strain on the rest of the fleet as the inevitable cost overruns occur.

I think the Trident replacement is becoming a poison chalice the RAF is more than happy for the RN to remain responsible for - and the RN increasingly unhappy.

New build Buccaneers with EJ200s and modern avionics would make a fine medium range bomber....................

Malcrf. What was wrong with the Blue Parrot and GPIC? :)

Immediately before the RN assumed the deterrent role, the V-Force had about 9 Vulcan and two Victor sqns with 11 ac on QRA. The SSBN brought 16 weapons to the party and the V Force reduced to about 7 or 8 sqns, ie follow on force of 50 or so weapons.

The Vanguard class can probably field a similar number of MIRV on its own.

The number of target sets will not have changed significantly.

For an aircraft based system you would need to accept a reversion to a similar Leningrad/Moscow system and need 11-12 QRA as defences would have improved in step as well. A further 40 aircraft would be needed to match the Vanguard follow on numbers

Agreed, but we need to maintain that capability, no matter how much the wicked witch of the north and her party berate it.
The Ukraine shows what can happen if you give up your capability, no way would Russia have ever marched into the Ukraine had it remained, but they gambled that we the west wouldn't back up our promises with conventional forces, and sadly we proved them right.
All that ensured was that no Country with capability will ever renounce their nuclear weapons again.

I couple of years ago I heard a well made program on Radio 4 all about this issue. They were interviewing various senior officers and a whole bunch of cross party politicians who were on the committee that decided to go for the SSBNs alone. Interestingly, and surprisingly to me, they said the numbers were very clear that the SSBN option was the cheaper and more effective solution, even leaving aside the second strike issues with land based options. I can't remember the name of the program, sorry, but it was very enlightening.

Exactly the points being discussed here were brought up and the reason explained.