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:)

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.

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.

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...

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 !

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?

http://www.pprune.org/military-aviat...new-paper.html

If you really want to go over it all again......

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.

Labour have a plan?

OAP

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.

Yes, to lose the next election

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?:confused:

FB:)

FB, nice try, but introducing facts into Labour's thinking is a fruitless task and an utter waste of time.

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?

No, you have a large group of other boats to keep the enemy away from your big boat.:oh:

OAP

But it would help to have a large group of other boats available (or maybe just Atlantic Conveyor).

Oh well, as long as the naughty team don't release a preemptive strike on your deterrent everything will be just fine.

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....

Credibility
 

Surely the measure of any deterrent is its credibility and survivability in any particular scenario?


An air based deterrent is of course vulnerable to a first strike. Largely, this was the reason for the switch to SSBN in the first place? A SSBN is not vulnerable to a first strike - at the minute?


Now an air launched deterrent would give greater flexibility in response to any particular attack, but whether that makes up for its vulnerability to being wiped out by a carefully planned first strike, I would not know.


I would assume a dispersal plan would be in place in times of International tension, but that assumes that any first strike would occur then, rather than as a 'bolt from the blue'.


TO

Have the Conservative defence plans been wholly successful then?

CG

Well, they don't rely on drones splashing down from the sky and seeking out SSBNs. So probably slightly less lunacy in the Conservative plan.

I was kinda thinking that the last 50 years hasn't been glorious in the defence/procurement stakes for either party.

CG

The parties have got away with it, it's the poor military that haven't been having a glorious time, CG. :E

Ain't it the truth!

CG

Drone technology a threat to Trident submarines, MPs to be told | UK Politics | News | The Independent

Naturally the Independent would support the Labour line. However, the drones that are referred to in the link I'd have thought would be against Hunter Killer Subs? Which would attempt to close in on Allied shipping, hence the drones would have a set area/square to search around the likely target. But a Strategic Nuclear Submarine... surely it can launch its attack from anywhere? or almost anywhere, so without having the faintest idea of any such vessel's likely whereabouts, any drones or other tracking devices would have nowhere specific to search! i.e. looking for the proverbial needle in a giant hay stack.

Thoughts!??!!?:confused:

FB:)

With regards to drones, we know more about the moon than we do the Oceans. They are very, very big, and with a tiny submarine intentionally designed to go to sea and dissapear and not be found, its not easy to find at the best of times.

Saying drones pose a threat to SSBN is like saying that martian death rays pose a threat to JSF. Unmanned technology, particularly underwater is in its infancy, has an incredibly long way to go to be mature, and doesnt get you away from the problem that even if you find it, you still need to kill it. The size of funding required to solve the problem is eyewatering to put it mildly.

Jimlad:

The problem with drone technology is the requirement for an umbilical to the drone from a mothership. As we all know the propagation of radio waves underwater is poor to non-existant, light is impractical and sound would reveal the position of the mothership. As you say the oceans are very very big places. Identification of your target well magine a blue on blue underwater.

We have not the infrastructure, location, security personnel, security culture, operational support, training capacity or proven platform to accommodate such a task.

You want to keep your deterrent hidden and sub based but don't want to spend an absolute fortune? Why not use nuclear armed TLAM?

Jayand, really much the same problem as aircraft - range, immediacy, vulnerability.

The latter was what did for Blue Steel; slow missiles can be intercepted and shot down.

On range this was less an issue with a simple enemy with a well developed target set. How would you deter several nuclear powers each with a long range, or long enough, delivery system?

And immediacy, you might argue that launch on warning is so last war and we could afford to wait until a strike. Indeed with the potential for conventional or certain WMD you might consider a nuclear response excessive. However anticipating retaliation in minutes is the whole raison d'etre for deterrence.

There's also the small consideration that at a time of heightened tension any inbound cruise missile would have to be regarded by the target country as potentially nuclear armed. As if the situation wouldn't be sufficiently squeaky-bum already.

Sign on for some B-21's...

Underwater Drones
 

I am getting confused here, an underwater drone has it is alleged got the ability to detect an SSBN or indeed implicitly any submarine, so what is stopping this technology being deployed to say the UK's Astute class fleet submarines?

If this is "Drone technology" is believable surely it is better to have it housed in a difficult to detect, self powered, human controlled submarine?

The difficulties of communicating with a drone in times of tension is an interesting concept, what is the drone programmed to do, surface and listen out for the Today Program, if there is no Today Program go hunting for SSBNs and destroy them with .... also how does the drone distinguish between different nationalities of SSBNs?

Astutes already have expendable drones, they even have the ability to kill the target though range and endurance is limited.

Whilst researching the availability of unmanned sub-hunters I came across the Swedish Bofors Torpedo 2000.
This amazing weapon is propelled by HTP and oil fuel, it has a swashplate motor and has wire communication to the launch vessel.
Marvellous! But wait; weren't we working on exactly the same torpedo technology over sixty years ago?

p.s. HTP is dangerous, unstable stuff and caused the sinking of HMS Sidon and the Russian Submarine Kursk.
The Germans called it T-stoff; should have been instabil stoff.

I don't understand the assertion that a drone needs to be tethered, or that it would have to search the ocean.

The article makes it clear that work is going on into autonomous drones. As to searching the ocean - how about deploying offshore of the target sub base and catching them as they sortie ? I'm sure all sorts of precautions are taken to avoid picking up a tail, but that might be harder against a shoal of small quiet drones.

Of course there is the range aspect, but you could also imagine a tag-team model, where one drone is replaced by another (air-delivered) as it comes to the end of its range. Possibly all science-fiction at the moment - but maybe not completely impossible in the future.

Frost chamber, and how during increased periods of tension are our adversaries meant to know if an airborne F35 is carrying a Nuke warhead? I am talking about Astute launched Tlam as an alternative to air launched, it must be cheaper given the costs of developing F35C, carriers etc. It also still gives us an at sea deterrent that enemies don't know location. Yes Tlam is easier to shoot down but with correct stealth positioning by Astute you get most of the world coverage without having to advertise your intentions by deploying aircraft, carrier group etc.

Refer to picture of Baldrick at the top....

Is he not far off a spitting image of the current Labour leader?

V1