Balanced Question Time panel tonight - of course not!
Discussion
gruffalo said:
QuantumTokoloshi said:
The one question not asked, is why do we have to spend £ billions on a ballistic missile / submarine etc. ?
A cruise missile tipped with a nuclear warhead is a much cheaper option and available today in tomahawk. A whole new cruise missile system will be much cheaper than a ballistic system in any case, as a lot of the tech will be off the shelf. It still provides the deterrent and then can also be launched off an SSN, SSG or even SSK, not just the large SSBN boats. The range is shorter for the current tomahawk system, but then the smaller subs can get closer to shore in any case.
A new cruise missile system can then can also be used for conventional bombardment, rather than a ballistic system which only has the one use.
Cruise are too slow and limited in range, intercontinental ballistic missiles are fast, really fast can hit pretty much anywhere on the planet from anywhere and hard to intercept.A cruise missile tipped with a nuclear warhead is a much cheaper option and available today in tomahawk. A whole new cruise missile system will be much cheaper than a ballistic system in any case, as a lot of the tech will be off the shelf. It still provides the deterrent and then can also be launched off an SSN, SSG or even SSK, not just the large SSBN boats. The range is shorter for the current tomahawk system, but then the smaller subs can get closer to shore in any case.
A new cruise missile system can then can also be used for conventional bombardment, rather than a ballistic system which only has the one use.
it's not that hard to knock down a cruise missile either (relatively), dam near impossible to intercept a ballistic missile or it's warheads.
also, 1 trident missile can hit 14 targets, with each Vanguard sub carrying 16 missiles, ie, up to 224 targets per boat.
compare this with the type 45 destroyers 48 cell launcher (that with upgrade could fire Tomahawks), quite apart from not having the space to store 224 missiles, would take some considerable time to launch them, and in all likelihood would be on the bottom of the ocean before getting many off.
Scuffers said:
exactly,
it's not that hard to knock down a cruise missile either (relatively), dam near impossible to intercept a ballistic missile or it's warheads.
also, 1 trident missile can hit 14 targets, with each Vanguard sub carrying 16 missiles, ie, up to 224 targets per boat.
compare this with the type 45 destroyers 48 cell launcher (that with upgrade could fire Tomahawks), quite apart from not having the space to store 224 missiles, would take some considerable time to launch them, and in all likelihood would be on the bottom of the ocean before getting many off.
The salvo rate of a tomahawk may well be slower but the claimed rate for Aster is <1.25 seconds; a minute to empty the silo isn't a long time. Plus you aren't comparing apples with apples; Trident may have up to 12 MIRVs(they haven't gone to sea with a full load since the cold war ended and we probably don't have enough warheads to load out more than 2 Vanguards' worth of missiles) but it's a bit of a blunt instrument and has a higher cost per shot attached compared to a dozen tomahawks. [warning: 'facts' from wiki] Trident costs £24m a pop and Tomahawk £1m. There are also the indirect costs of the launch platform; a box for Tomahawk can be strapped to a container ship if necessary but Trident needs either a handy Vandenberg AFB or a SSBN.it's not that hard to knock down a cruise missile either (relatively), dam near impossible to intercept a ballistic missile or it's warheads.
also, 1 trident missile can hit 14 targets, with each Vanguard sub carrying 16 missiles, ie, up to 224 targets per boat.
compare this with the type 45 destroyers 48 cell launcher (that with upgrade could fire Tomahawks), quite apart from not having the space to store 224 missiles, would take some considerable time to launch them, and in all likelihood would be on the bottom of the ocean before getting many off.
lauda said:
BlackLabel said:
Church wasn't too happy about the audience.
But still stands by her comments.
So, for once, she wasn't surrounded by a bunch of fawning sycophants and she didn't like it? I think she's just been introduced to the real 'real world'. But still stands by her comments.
king idiotic woman... as bad as Bono with even less brainsBlackLabel said:
Church wasn't too happy about the audience.
But still stands by her comments.
what's frightening (and sad) about this is not that she's an ill informed idiot so much as she is so thick, she does not realise just how stupid she is.But still stands by her comments.
I think the only word for this is delusional.
Unfortunately, in this day and age, she is far from alone, this country is full of very vocal idiots.
Scuffers said:
not sure, Trident is very much a multiple small warhead device, as opposed to a single big one.
it can carry either 14 x W76 (that have a yield of 100 kilotons) or 14 x W88 (that have an estimated yield of 475 kiloton), although under START I it's reduced to 8 (not sure the UK ones are included in this?)
Russia have the Tsar nuke 50 Mega tonnes which is 25,000x the power of the two dropped in Japan. it can carry either 14 x W76 (that have a yield of 100 kilotons) or 14 x W88 (that have an estimated yield of 475 kiloton), although under START I it's reduced to 8 (not sure the UK ones are included in this?)
Biggest U.S. Nuke is 15Mega tonnes.
U.S. Managed the 15Mega tonnes first to which Russia made a 22Mega tonnes to have one up but then the Tsar..... As I understand it if they dropped that on the UK and it detonated in the air the entire UK would be fried ie the blast range has a bigger diameter than our Island..... 1 bomb everything gone forever
irocfan said:
It was designed to be 100mega tonnes only lowered to stop the fireball being too large for the plane to escape. The fireball of the Tsar 50 Mega tonne bomb was 6miles..... It gave 5.5 on the ricter scale
Thermal 3 RS degree burns were sustained 170miles away from ground zero.
So detonate the 50-100mega tonne in Birmingham and UK would be flattened and rocks fused all over the land.
BlackLabel said:
Church wasn't too happy about the audience.
She, like Corbyn seem to think their wee bubble of pals = the country at large.Newsflash: nowhere even close.
Have a look at a map next time you're on Wikipedia. Half of Wales is blue for a start. f
king idiot. Plus she looked quite beefy, the loose top thing wasn't fooling me. Would not smash.technodup said:
he, like Corbyn seem to think their wee bubble of pals = the country at large.
Newsflash: nowhere even close.
Have a look at a map next time you're on Wikipedia. Half of Wales is blue for a start. fking idiot. Plus she looked quite beefy, the loose top thing wasn't fooling me. Would not smash.
£16 m in the bank++ Newsflash: nowhere even close.
Have a look at a map next time you're on Wikipedia. Half of Wales is blue for a start. f
king idiot. Plus she looked quite beefy, the loose top thing wasn't fooling me. Would not smash.29yo
Seems needy / chaotic celeb lifestyle but put some headphones on job done
hidetheelephants said:
The salvo rate of a tomahawk may well be slower but the claimed rate for Aster is <1.25 seconds; a minute to empty the silo isn't a long time. Plus you aren't comparing apples with apples; Trident may have up to 12 MIRVs(they haven't gone to sea with a full load since the cold war ended and we probably don't have enough warheads to load out more than 2 Vanguards' worth of missiles) but it's a bit of a blunt instrument and has a higher cost per shot attached compared to a dozen tomahawks. [warning: 'facts' from wiki] Trident costs £24m a pop and Tomahawk £1m. There are also the indirect costs of the launch platform; a box for Tomahawk can be strapped to a container ship if necessary but Trident needs either a handy Vandenberg AFB or a SSBN.
The biggest advantage of a submarine as I understand it is that you could sit one off the coast of an enemy and they wouldn't know it was there. An overt launcher, (land base or ship), is much easier to knock out before they even get a shot away. irocfan said:
fking idiotic woman... as bad as Bono with even less brains
To be moderately fair, while she produced some really poorlyking idiotic woman... as bad as Bono with even less brainsthought out answers, she was capable of being a reasonable
member of the panel. Ability to shut up and listen, take advice
from the chairman, allow other panelists to get a word in edgeways etc
The worst panelist I've seen for years, Owen Jones, would learn a lot
from her panel technique if he ever shuts up and listens.
technodup said:
BlackLabel said:
Church wasn't too happy about the audience.
She, like Corbyn seem to think their wee bubble of pals = the country at large.Newsflash: nowhere even close.
Have a look at a map next time you're on Wikipedia. Half of Wales is blue for a start. f
king idiot. Plus she looked quite beefy, the loose top thing wasn't fooling me. Would not smash.http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/304/media/images/82...
Chlamydia said:
The biggest advantage of a submarine as I understand it is that you could sit one off the coast of an enemy and they wouldn't know it was there. An overt launcher, (land base or ship), is much easier to knock out before they even get a shot away.
True enough, but it's tactically useful to have more than one platform capable of firing your cruise missiles; even the block 4 tomahawk has a range of 700nm so over the horizon is not a problem unless you're attacking Russia and want to hit something in the middle.If we're going to keep a nuclear deterrent then it should be a sub carried ICBM. Going for half measures like nuclear carrying cruise missiles removes the whole point and is a false economy to my mind.
You want even the most optimistic of nutters to know that several minutes after their nukes land they're getting some in return no matter where they are or how good their missile defenses.
You want even the most optimistic of nutters to know that several minutes after their nukes land they're getting some in return no matter where they are or how good their missile defenses.
Ask any would-be bullyboy. There's nothing lessens aggression as quickly as the sure and certain knowledge that you, or your mates, will come at him in spades. A lengthy period of peace is mistakenly used as a sign that we don't need to be so wary, rather than a reason for keeping the big stick out of sight but available. It just means you can continue to talk quietly, from a position of strength.
Scuffers said:
gruffalo said:
QuantumTokoloshi said:
The one question not asked, is why do we have to spend £ billions on a ballistic missile / submarine etc. ?
A cruise missile tipped with a nuclear warhead is a much cheaper option and available today in tomahawk. A whole new cruise missile system will be much cheaper than a ballistic system in any case, as a lot of the tech will be off the shelf. It still provides the deterrent and then can also be launched off an SSN, SSG or even SSK, not just the large SSBN boats. The range is shorter for the current tomahawk system, but then the smaller subs can get closer to shore in any case.
A new cruise missile system can then can also be used for conventional bombardment, rather than a ballistic system which only has the one use.
Cruise are too slow and limited in range, intercontinental ballistic missiles are fast, really fast can hit pretty much anywhere on the planet from anywhere and hard to intercept.A cruise missile tipped with a nuclear warhead is a much cheaper option and available today in tomahawk. A whole new cruise missile system will be much cheaper than a ballistic system in any case, as a lot of the tech will be off the shelf. It still provides the deterrent and then can also be launched off an SSN, SSG or even SSK, not just the large SSBN boats. The range is shorter for the current tomahawk system, but then the smaller subs can get closer to shore in any case.
A new cruise missile system can then can also be used for conventional bombardment, rather than a ballistic system which only has the one use.
it's not that hard to knock down a cruise missile either (relatively), dam near impossible to intercept a ballistic missile or it's warheads.
also, 1 trident missile can hit 14 targets, with each Vanguard sub carrying 16 missiles, ie, up to 224 targets per boat.
compare this with the type 45 destroyers 48 cell launcher (that with upgrade could fire Tomahawks), quite apart from not having the space to store 224 missiles, would take some considerable time to launch them, and in all likelihood would be on the bottom of the ocean before getting many off.
The US SM6 standard system has intercepted in both phases as well. Ballistic missiles are not immune anymore, even the first gen patriot system has some ABM capability in boost phase.
SLBM are a hugely expensive vanity project, and trident is a debatable independent nuclear deterrent.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff