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.

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.