HMS Queen Elizabeth

[mph1977]

V8 Fettler said:

XJ Flyer said:

V8 Fettler said:

With a broad brush, and with a view to the general benefits to mankind, UK defence spending probably needs to be around 5% of UK GDP. Plus a compulsory contribution of 1% from each country in Europe to reflect that the UK kept the dying flame of freedom alive 1914 - 1918 and 1939 - 1945

To be fair Germany hasn't exactly paid its fair share from 1945 to date.As for general benefits to mankind it is basically only the nuclear deterrent that is the main priority and that really matters.Everything else is just a side show to that.

The UK nuclear deterrent has been immaterial to every conflict the UK has ever been involved in. In reality, it's an extension of the US nuclear deterrent, but you never know what the future holds.

The Uk owned and managed Nuclear weapons are NOT an extension of the US deterrent, the UK polaris and Trident missles had UK designed Physics pakages and Uk designed control systems , they are NPT linked to the football and do not require US permission to deploy or be fired ( unlike some of the tac Nukes under NATO command which were stored by the US in various European nations to be issued in time of war for use by NATO troops of any nation - )

when we had the We177a air launched weapons they were also totally independent .

[saaby93]

Do we have anything better than these?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_F/A-18E/F_Supe...

[Lurking Lawyer]

XJ Flyer said:

The defence industry is only there for the national security of the country nothing else.

You might want to tell the board and shareholders of (for instance) Bae Systems that. Until the government decides to try to nationalise it, it can exert indirect pressure but that's it.

You're also overlooking the fact that a majority of the defence contractors out there aren't British and so are subject to even less control than UK based companies.

I'm intrigued to know how much deterrent value you think Trident has on the likes of Islamic State or any of the Al Qaeda type groups.

Resoectfully, you're living in cloud cuckoo land.

[V8 Fettler]

mph1977 said:

V8 Fettler said:

XJ Flyer said:

V8 Fettler said:

With a broad brush, and with a view to the general benefits to mankind, UK defence spending probably needs to be around 5% of UK GDP. Plus a compulsory contribution of 1% from each country in Europe to reflect that the UK kept the dying flame of freedom alive 1914 - 1918 and 1939 - 1945

To be fair Germany hasn't exactly paid its fair share from 1945 to date.As for general benefits to mankind it is basically only the nuclear deterrent that is the main priority and that really matters.Everything else is just a side show to that.

The UK nuclear deterrent has been immaterial to every conflict the UK has ever been involved in. In reality, it's an extension of the US nuclear deterrent, but you never know what the future holds.

The Uk owned and managed Nuclear weapons are NOT an extension of the US deterrent, the UK polaris and Trident missles had UK designed Physics pakages and Uk designed control systems , they are NPT linked to the football and do not require US permission to deploy or be fired ( unlike some of the tac Nukes under NATO command which were stored by the US in various European nations to be issued in time of war for use by NATO troops of any nation - )

when we had the We177a air launched weapons they were also totally independent .

Do you seriously think that the UK could launch a nuke without US permission?

[jimbobsimmonds]

V8 Fettler said:

Do you seriously think that the UK could launch a nuke without US permission?

Yes...

[Lurking Lawyer]

V8 Fettler said:

Do you seriously think that the UK could launch a nuke without US permission?

Could? Yes.

Would? Seems unlikely - but never say never

[mph1977]

V8 Fettler said:

Do you seriously think that the UK could launch a nuke without US permission?

could ? yes as unlike the US system there is delegated decision making and disseminated control

would is a different matter

[XJ Flyer]

Lurking Lawyer said:

XJ Flyer said:

The defence industry is only there for the national security of the country nothing else.

You might want to tell the board and shareholders of (for instance) Bae Systems that. Until the government decides to try to nationalise it, it can exert indirect pressure but that's it.

You're also overlooking the fact that a majority of the defence contractors out there aren't British and so are subject to even less control than UK based companies.

I'm intrigued to know how much deterrent value you think Trident has on the likes of Islamic State or any of the Al Qaeda type groups.

Resoectfully, you're living in cloud cuckoo land.

In general those groups are only a threat to us because of our cloud cuckoo land immigration policy and incoherent foreign/defence policy related to the places where they have their power and support bases.Whereas I'm sure the likes of Russia etc would be most 'interested' to hear that both us and the US have deleted our tactical and strategic nuclear capability.

[XJ Flyer]

mph1977 said:

V8 Fettler said:

Do you seriously think that the UK could launch a nuke without US permission?

could ? yes as unlike the US system there is delegated decision making and disseminated control

would is a different matter

I'd guess that the US would probably prefer to nuke us than to let a unilateral UK launch put the US at risk of retaliation.Realistically the independent UK nuclear deterrent is a myth.Which is one of the weaknesses of NATO assuming an opponent were to play the US off against others like the UK in that regard.

Edited by XJ Flyer on Friday 5th September 22:24

[V8 Fettler]

jimbobsimmonds said:

V8 Fettler said:

Do you seriously think that the UK could launch a nuke without US permission?

Yes...

Would need the US to completely trust the UK, never has and never will.

[Lurking Lawyer]

V8 Fettler said:

Would need the US to completely trust the UK, never has and never will.

So what at you saying exactly?

That the US would bring so much pressure to bear that we could never order a unilateral launch?

Or that they have some sort of back door control system which means that, even if No 10 ignored POTUS and ordered a launch, the missile wouldn't fire when the skipper and XO turned their keys......?

The former, I can see. The latter seems to me to have distinct shades of foil hat.....

[XJ Flyer]

Lurking Lawyer said:

V8 Fettler said:

Would need the US to completely trust the UK, never has and never will.

So what at you saying exactly?

That the US would bring so much pressure to bear that we could never order a unilateral launch?

Or that they have some sort of back door control system which means that, even if No 10 ignored POTUS and ordered a launch, the missile wouldn't fire when the skipper and XO turned their keys......?

The former, I can see. The latter seems to me to have distinct shades of foil hat.....

Obviously the former.IE why would we need to bother with sacrificing British conventional forces in a pointless unwinable conventional confrontation with Russia for example.When we could just cut to the chase using our 'independent' nuclear deterrent.Which might just work in deterring an attack but nothing to lose,for us,if it doesn't.

Edited by XJ Flyer on Friday 5th September 23:35

Edited by XJ Flyer on Friday 5th September 23:37

[saaby93]

XJ Flyer said:

we could just cut to the chase using our 'independent' nuclear deterrent.Which might just work in deterring an attack but nothing to lose,for us,if it doesn't.

Nothing to lose?
If we lobbed one somewhere do you not think a few more might come our way
As far as I can tell most of our nuclear bunkers are now tourist sites


The deterrent is so that if anyone thinks of lobbing one at us, they know we'll lob a few back, so hopefully they wont bother

For intermediate skirmishes an intermediate type of kit is required

Edited by saaby93 on Friday 5th September 23:47

[XJ Flyer]

saaby93 said:

XJ Flyer said:

we could just cut to the chase using our 'independent' nuclear deterrent.Which might just work in deterring an attack but nothing to lose,for us,if it doesn't.

Nothing to lose?
If we lobbed one somewhere do you not think a few more might come our way
As far as I can tell most of our nuclear bunkers are now tourist sites

Trust me if we ever get into a real fight with Russia which is looking ever more likely,we will inevitably be getting enough incoming in that regard to not want to bother with the bunker because there will be nothing left to go back out to.In which case it is all about giving as close to as good as we get as possible.The problem being that if the opposition is bright enough it can neutralise our ability to retaliate by just threatening to hit the US if we hit them.IE if push came to shove the US would probably happily sacrifice our conventional forces and then us to save themselves under such a threat.

[Godalmighty83]

Maybe a different thread for weird and hypothetical theories related to all out nuclear war?

Last I checked the CVF didn't carry any ICBM's.

[hidetheelephants]

MartG said:

Just not developed into as many roles as the F-4 ( e.g. Wild Weasel ) and nowhere as many built ( probably due to cost, and the fact that the sole export customer then went bad on them )

From a practical perspective a deck full of F4s is infinitely preferable to a deck full of F14s; we might actually be able to keep enough of them airborne to fight a war, whereas the F14s would be crowding the hangar decks.

[Dr Jekyll]

doogz said:

What independent nuclear deterrent?

The one we rent from the Americans?

Honestly, in the sort of conflicts we've seen in the last 20 years or so, which is going to be more useful, more practical to use, a couple of carriers of STOVL multirole/fighter/ground attack aircraft, or some ballistic sub launched nukes?

Surely what matters is the kind of conflicts were are going to see in the next 50 years.

[Dr Jekyll]

doogz said:

What do we think they will be?

Nobody knows, that's my point.

[Dr Jekyll]

doogz said:

Can you invisage a scenario where a handful of subs with some nukes is going to be more useful than a couple of carrier battle groups?

Yes, and I can also think of plenty of scenarios where a couple of carrier battle groups are more useful with nuke equipped subs available as back up.

[MartG]

doogz said:

Can you invisage a scenario where a handful of subs with some nukes is going to be more useful than a couple of carrier battle groups?

Yes, especially if Putin carries on as he is doing now....