Could the RAF resume the nuclear deterrent as a cheaper alternative to Trident?
 

Report discovered on the web

Cue thunderous outrage from red-cheeked retired admirals, etc

Its been done to death over the last few years. Fundamentally the UK is not ideally suited for sustaining a credible airborne deterrent in the current threat environment.

We'd need lots more aircraft, lots more dispersal airfields, a whole new nuclear device to drop, a significant expansion in the RAF to ensure that sufficient aircrew are available to crew the squadrons on the nuclear strike role and also meet our day to day commitments, and also a wider uplift in manning and real estate.

Or we could just build 4 submarines, crack on with it like we've been doing for 47 years and be done with it...

(I know RELENTLESS is a bit more than 4 SSBN but its still a damn sight less than V Force Redux).

As the article points out the major shortcomings of an airborne nuclear deterrent and supports the retention of a submarine deterrent, I can't see why the red cheeked retired admirals would be outraged in the slightest.

My lad just asked an interesting question.
"Dad - when would a modern air force use a parachute retarded free fall nuclear weapon?"
Prompted by him watching Hiroshima docos.
Bloody good question thought I.
When you've got ICBMs - what do you use your WE-whatever to whack?
Secondary targets?
Do the ICBMs knock out the cities etc. and then the nuclear bombers go in and clean anything else up?
Or have I got the order of battle wrong - bombers first to nuke a few smaller, lesser targets, and then ICBMs only used when it's an all out nuclear exchange?

Could the RAF resume the nuclear deterrent as a cheaper alternative to Trident?
 

An interesting question. I know during the Cold War there were battlefield nuclear weapons to achieve tactical effect, but in this day and age, given current political thinking and sensibilities can there ever be such a thing as a tactical nuke?

Ask the ruskies....[echoes of the past?]..

Russia destroys tonnes of foreign food imports - BBC News


..change in doctrine..

Insight - Russia's nuclear strategy raises concerns in NATO | Reuters

Genstabler

I agree with you.

The article seems very balanced to me and I would have thought please the Navy without in any way giving the RAF any cause for complaint.

The red cheeked admirals will be outraged because that is their natural position whenever the topic of taking anything away from them is even mentioned, especially to give it to the RAF. I'm sure they will also receive the expert counsel of the the Big Bearded Bonkers Bloke who will point out that this is clearly yet another RAF conspiracy against the RN. :E

That aside, I thought the article was quite well balanced and shows that it really comes down to what the UK wants to achieve and what it is willing to spend. And, yes, I fully agree this would involve massive spending to prepare the RAF for this role - although why do I suspect the Government might just try to scab on a huge new role within existing resources?

A couple of thoughts occur. And I'm deliberately not revisiting the usual arguments, which Jimlad refers to.

First, there are systems "out there" that could be options. The French have a system that could, politics permitting, suit the need. And they don't seem to be too concerned about Germany being in the way - they are in the same nuclear alliance, after all. The system is tested and supported, and there are improvements in the pipeline. A further plus is the financial benefit of sharing an almost common system and, possibly, basing etc.

Second, I can't help thinking of numbers at readiness. Is it enough to have standing QRA(N) if the rest of the arsenal is too second line? That is where a significant uplift of resources becomes an issue.

Third, (I'm being brief here) what are the real domestic and US politics involved? I think we can all guess at the obvious issues, but the secret squirrel stuff would be massive.

At the end of the day, even with proper resourcing, such a move could save billions. On the other hand, does Dave want to give up his diminishing status on the World Stage and become even more like some other nations as NATO bit players?

Finally, will it happen? Er, probably not. Could it be made to work? With the right will, yes. Is it a good idea? Again, depends what the nation wants (to have and to pay for). I'm sure the Navy will have much better ideas.

What could possibly go wrong.
 

So, a couple of squadrons for the strategic strike and recce role perhaps? certainly not that F35 cash sink hole though. I'm thinking maybe a two seat adaption of the tranche 1 Typhoon. Yep, that'll do nicely and surely be a cheaper and more flexible resource than four boats. So, we just get BWoS to turn out a quick adaption, which ought to be simple and cost effective. :E

Two seat Typhoon would not be a good option, sadly. Massive architecture redesign and the fuel penalty of the second seat is prohibitive.

Where are you going to base your nuclear deterrent? Wherever you choose the NIMBY's will be out in force and their particular MP will be watching.

"At the end of the day, even with proper resourcing, such a move could save billions. On the other hand, does Dave want to give up his diminishing status on the World Stage and become even more like some other nations as NATO bit players? "

I'm confused. How does having to massively expand the RAF manpower totals, real estate and support network, buy lots of additional airframes to ensure sufficient numbers to deliver a nuclear strike mission, and develop an entirely new warhead and delivery system save us billions of pounds over the existing system please?

Just a reminder that in its heyday the V-Force required some 150 bombers deployed to 30 plus airfields in time of crisis. We don't have that kind of infrastructure anymore, and would need to roughly double the RAF fast jet force to get similar front line numbers in service.

More to the point the RAF neither has the technical expertise or retained the corporate knowledge to operate or maintain these on aircraft systems...

Another idea
 

Here's a novel concept..... How about taking a couple of squadrons worth of Tornado airframes, remove wings, engines and avionics. Then rebuild around a new fuel efficient pair of turbofans and new carbon fibre wings together with conformal fuel tanks. BWoS have good experience of that sort of thing :E

Two seat?
 

Courtney,

Why would you want a two-seat airplane to do the job?
This wonderful single-seat machine did it very well for a number of years and carried a very big crowd-pleaser[IMG]http://i1188.photobucket.com/albums/...s2hwdq0cy.jpeg[/IMG]…

Ahhhhh the late Wing Commander Wharmby's mount?.. Or was it CA?



Fast, agile and accurate, a bloodhound is it not? ;)

I think Chernobyl proved that a little radiation goes a heck of a long way and a few so called tactical nukes would soon render Europe uninhabitable.

Mike Rondot, it wasn't me that said they would want a two-seat jet, my remarks about two-seat Typhoon was a reply. I would see the single seat Jag replacement doing it just fine. Jag did it just fine, so why not? Yep! With you there. :ok:

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 Scotland.

Fareastdriver, not sure who the "you" is in your post, but whomsoever that is will have the same problem no matter what the future deterrent might be.

Nutty, indeed it does, although there a big difference between the results of an actual nuclear bang and a conventional explosion in the middle of a big pile nuclear material. I was going to make the point earlier that having a couple of tactical nukes in the middle of your big cities is probably enough and maybe you don't need the full apocalypse device to make your point.

Trouble is with a tactical nuke is it is a nuke and you then get into the my bomb is bigger than yours as it ramps up.
One doubts that using a tactical nuke to stem the attack would result in the other side responding likewise with a proportional response.

Sorry, but far better keeping the capability out of sight in one of the RN's finest. You can't exactly have a nuclear bomber pop-up on the beach without significant warning.