The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[kev 99]

Tactical free fall nuclear bombs doesn't represent a particularly good nuclear deterrent to me, especially when they are married to a fast jet and carriers. If you want to do air based nuclear deterrent you need aircraft with strategic reach, basically a proper bomber with the range that goes with it.

Does the costing also include running/labour costs for all that extra kit and the personnel required to man it?

 

[ASSAIL]

I have just read (Warship Magazine Dec 2014) Francis Beaufort's commentary on ex CDS General David Richards' new book, "Taking Command" and of his opposition to the RN's new carriers. It reeks of self serving, internecine combat between the UK service chiefs with the Army in particular, attempting to remain pre-eminent in the post Afghanistan world.
There seemed to be a rather bizarre and fuzzy relationship between Richards and David Cameron which, from far away, seemed to degrade the overall effectiveness of the British armed forces in the post continental ground war environment.
Is this just me? What are the thoughts of our British members here.

 

[Volkodav]

Thanks for the heads up, I've got the edition and children permitting will read it tomorrow.

 

[RobWilliams]

Tactical free fall nuclear bombs doesn't represent a particularly good nuclear deterrent to me, especially when they are married to a fast jet and carriers. If you want to do air based nuclear deterrent you need aircraft with strategic reach, basically a proper bomber with the range that goes with it.

That's exactly it, it's a degraded deterrent in it's projected form, even with all the ancillaries it's proposed should be bought.

Does the costing also include running/labour costs for all that extra kit and the personnel required to man it?

I don't think so on the purchasing side, but i have a hunch it might have been included on the SSBN side as a 'recovered cost', but I haven't checked it thoroughly.

I have just read (Warship Magazine Dec 2014) Francis Beaufort's commentary on ex CDS General David Richards' new book, "Taking Command" and of his opposition to the RN's new carriers. It reeks of self serving, internecine combat between the UK service chiefs with the Army in particular, attempting to remain pre-eminent in the post Afghanistan world.
There seemed to be a rather bizarre and fuzzy relationship between Richards and David Cameron which, from far away, seemed to degrade the overall effectiveness of the British armed forces in the post continental ground war environment.
Is this just me? What are the thoughts of our British members here.

If I remember rightly he wanted to save the Harriers + Ark Royal/Illustrious out until they could be replaced by a class of improved light carriers. In my mind it wouldn't have been far off of what Cavour is in terms of performance, complement etc.

He opposed the QEC every step of the way only caving in relatively recently when it would be "criminal" not to use them.

He also apposed the CATOBAR conversion as an "expensive luxury". When the USMC wanted to buy our Harriers he tried to delay it and according to him RAF/RN heads were in agreement that if he could prevent the CATOBAR switch then they would try get the Harriers back on Illustrious to prevent a gap.

He lost, Liam Fox canned it and we are where we are.

Thing is, he was the most senior uniformed advisor to the DefSec at the time so had a large amount of influence. Chief of the Defence Staff as a role is filled by someone selected by the DefSec, supported by the PM and approved by the Queen.

The current CDS is focussing on trying to move us away from Afghan, he's also opposing cuts which is good to see.

 

[the concerned]

With all the talk about the nuclear deterrent I will ask the question to those who are more qualified to answer. Could the UK use its nuclear weapons without the say so of NATO or the US. If not then whats the point its not independent and I think if NATO want a say in how we use them then they should pay for them.It would be nice to see the nuclear attack boat fleet increased to at least 10 boats.

 

[RobWilliams]

Depends.

If we get into a scenario where a deployment of nuclear weapons is likely, then chances are the US is involved too anyway.

The question of how independent we are depends who you ask, but i'm of the opinion that if we wanted to deploy our warheads then we could do so.

A contract has been placed with BAE to order long lead items for the first 3 Type 26 frigates and shore testing facilities

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/...nomy-with-859-million-shipbuilding-investment

 

[Anixtu]

Could the UK use its nuclear weapons without the say so of NATO or the US.

Some guys on a boat press some buttons, whoosh, boom. What's to stop it?

Trident launch doesn't require farting about with codes sent from a bunker in the US or Belgium or anything silly like that.

 

[Bonza]

With all the talk about the nuclear deterrent I will ask the question to those who are more qualified to answer. Could the UK use its nuclear weapons without the say so of NATO or the US. If not then whats the point its not independent and I think if NATO want a say in how we use them then they should pay for them.It would be nice to see the nuclear attack boat fleet increased to at least 10 boats.

Are you seriously suggesting NATO should pay to expand your nation's own deterrent from four boats to "at least ten" just because they might want to have a quiet word with your diplomats before you touch off World War 3?

This is ridiculous.

 

[the concerned]

If you read properly what I wrote you should know the difference between a nuclear attack boat and a ssbn " PLEASE". What I should have clarified is that I think we don't have enough ssn's which for me is core to our future offensive capabilities. Again I did ask for those more qualified to answer the question first about whether our nuclear deterrent is truly independent which others did answer so the follow up was dealt with.

 

[RobWilliams]

Non starter.

Besides which, if you want them to chip into our deterrent why would you expand the SSN force?

 

[StobieWan]

With all the talk about the nuclear deterrent I will ask the question to those who are more qualified to answer. Could the UK use its nuclear weapons without the say so of NATO or the US. If not then whats the point its not independent and I think if NATO want a say in how we use them then they should pay for them.It would be nice to see the nuclear attack boat fleet increased to at least 10 boats.

Yep.

There are no permissive action links, no interlocks or measures to prevent the UK launching any or all of the trident missiles in tubes at any times and that decision is a sovereign matter. End of.

The maintenance of the deterrent isn't independent and we're reliant on the US for the missile overhauls but the warheads, boats and the entire signalling chain is UK controlled.

I'd like to have seen Astute numbers up to ten or even just eight but that's what you get when peace breaks out (even if it was a temporary and illusory cessation of the cold war)

 

[Bonza]

If you read properly what I wrote you should know the difference between a nuclear attack boat and a ssbn " PLEASE". What I should have clarified is that I think we don't have enough ssn's which for me is core to our future offensive capabilities. Again I did ask for those more qualified to answer the question first about whether our nuclear deterrent is truly independent which others did answer so the follow up was dealt with.

If not then whats the point its not independent and I think if NATO want a say in how we use them then they should pay for them

Gee, I wonder why I assumed you were talking about boomers...

 

[pkcasimir]

Yep.

There are no permissive action links, no interlocks or measures to prevent the UK launching any or all of the trident missiles in tubes at any times and that decision is a sovereign matter. End of.

The maintenance of the deterrent isn't independent and we're reliant on the US for the missile overhauls but the warheads, boats and the entire signalling chain is UK controlled.

I'd like to have seen Astute numbers up to ten or even just eight but that's what you get when peace breaks out (even if it was a temporary and illusory cessation of the cold war)

While it is correct that the UK could launch its Trident missiles without the approval of the US, as a matter of practical policy, that would be the last time the UK launched any missiles. The missiles themselves are leased from the US and serviced by them, the warheads have significant US input and support (indeed, they are a virtual clone if the US's M76 warhead) and the boats themselves are highly dependent on US design and technology. Should the US disapprove, it could cancel the leases, refuse to service any missiles in the UK's inventory and withdraw all technical support.

 

[RobWilliams]

Realistically when will a deployment of nuclear weapons which the US doesn't support actually occur in reality?

I'd be intrigued to know when this could actually happen.

EDIT: Inb4 someone mentions the Falklands.

 

[StobieWan]

While it is correct that the UK could launch its Trident missiles without the approval of the US, as a matter of practical policy, that would be the last time the UK launched any missiles. The missiles themselves are leased from the US and serviced by them, the warheads have significant US input and support (indeed, they are a virtual clone if the US's M76 warhead) and the boats themselves are highly dependent on US design and technology. Should the US disapprove, it could cancel the leases, refuse to service any missiles in the UK's inventory and withdraw all technical support.

Or space bats could invade.

The run-on from that would finish the US diplomatically - everyone would conclude quite sensibly that if they could stitch up one of their closest partners that way, why would you ever trust them? The US is actually reliant on UK involvement with their own program as it underwrites some US costs - it's a useful relationship and not one that's going to be easily dissolved.

 

[StobieWan]

Realistically when will a deployment of nuclear weapons which the US doesn't support actually occur in reality?

I'd be intrigued to know when this could actually happen.

EDIT: Inb4 someone mentions the Falklands.

It's a deterrent. The underlying principle is we *could* retaliate without ringing up the other mob first - and that's a powerful argument. If a European or Pacific rim country were to be struck with a nuclear weapon, there's always been the slight possibility that the US might choose to sit it out if they were facing a major retaliatory launch for becoming involved.

The UK doesn't have to deal with that uncertainty - we can simply make our own sovereign decision and hit the button.It's the final argument of kings.

 

[FormerDirtDart]

Or space bats could invade.

The run-on from that would finish the US diplomatically - everyone would conclude quite sensibly that if they could stitch up one of their closest partners that way, why would you ever trust them? The US is actually reliant on UK involvement with their own program as it underwrites some US costs - it's a useful relationship and not one that's going to be easily dissolved.

UK, Space bats?
A threat not to be toyed with

 

[ASSAIL]

UK, Space bats?
A threat not to be toyed with

I worry about your leisure time when you know where to find one of those

 

[StobieWan]

UK, Space bats?
A threat not to be toyed with

We have a space bats committee formed up. At the first sign of a space bat invasion, they will be convened and a minuted meeting will be held, producing a series of action items to be discussed in the next quarterly meeting of the HMG Space Bat enquiry.


They have *no* idea who they're f*cking with.

 

[ManteoRed]

So with this whole kerfuffle with the Russians, and the likely fact that tensions will continue at a higher rate for the next few years, is MPA being talked about in smokey back rooms more often? The operation seed corn made it seem like it was just a matter of time anyway. Any realistic insight as to whether this is pushing it further up the priority list?