The RAF and Nuclear Weapons
Discussion
Afternoon all,
I’m doing a bit of a project with work and part of its includes giving a 20 to 30 minute talk on a specific subject. Pistonheads is always good for getting the opinions and views of others and I don’t think there are any real wrong answers, just your opinion?
The question I’ve been posed is…
"What were the prime factors which prompted the RAF to give up its tactical nuclear weapons? Should RAF procurement plans once again consider the merits of long range, dual role (nuclear/conventional) stand-off bombers in support of distant theatres of operations?"
I’ve first found out the difference between a tactical weapon and a strategic weapon which I’m happy with. However, it would appear that the only real reason the RAF gave up its nuclear role was that the end of the cold war was fast approaching and there was no real need to replace it. The UK was then left with one single nuclear system, TRIDENT.
We didn’t replace the V force bombers as we had Tornado (which was totally inferior and of no use for delivering nuclear weapons at long range). Does anyone else think we need to look at another long range bomber? The US and Russia still do and they are forging ahead with replacement programmes?
I’d welcome anyone’s opinions and views!
Cheers
Martin
I’m doing a bit of a project with work and part of its includes giving a 20 to 30 minute talk on a specific subject. Pistonheads is always good for getting the opinions and views of others and I don’t think there are any real wrong answers, just your opinion?
The question I’ve been posed is…
"What were the prime factors which prompted the RAF to give up its tactical nuclear weapons? Should RAF procurement plans once again consider the merits of long range, dual role (nuclear/conventional) stand-off bombers in support of distant theatres of operations?"
I’ve first found out the difference between a tactical weapon and a strategic weapon which I’m happy with. However, it would appear that the only real reason the RAF gave up its nuclear role was that the end of the cold war was fast approaching and there was no real need to replace it. The UK was then left with one single nuclear system, TRIDENT.
We didn’t replace the V force bombers as we had Tornado (which was totally inferior and of no use for delivering nuclear weapons at long range). Does anyone else think we need to look at another long range bomber? The US and Russia still do and they are forging ahead with replacement programmes?
I’d welcome anyone’s opinions and views!
Cheers
Martin
Aircraft carried weapons were largely made obsolete by ICBMs is the simple answer. Tactical weapons are banned under the START or SALT treaties - I forget which now. That said, some TLAMs are tactical warhead capable anyway so there is no need for a replacment V bomber in the UK as the TLAM has sufficient stand-off range from Astute or T-Class SSNs. We aslo don't have the money for a replacement because the successor programme (Vanguard SSBN) is going to copst mega-bucks.
I doubt very much the US will replace the B2 with anything other than a drone. The B52 has been LEX'd to 2040 odd and the B2 will probably go way past that if there aren't life limiting factors with the composite / avionics use.
Just to add...
One to thing to add into your talk is the inter-service rivalry aspect. The USAF 'own' part of the US nuclear deterent. Losing that will be a huge reduction in status, which is what will drive their desire to maintain some form of nuke delivery capability. My guess is that the B2 replacement won't happen.
I doubt very much the US will replace the B2 with anything other than a drone. The B52 has been LEX'd to 2040 odd and the B2 will probably go way past that if there aren't life limiting factors with the composite / avionics use.
Just to add...
One to thing to add into your talk is the inter-service rivalry aspect. The USAF 'own' part of the US nuclear deterent. Losing that will be a huge reduction in status, which is what will drive their desire to maintain some form of nuke delivery capability. My guess is that the B2 replacement won't happen.
Edited by rhinochopig on Tuesday 3rd February 14:40
trashbat said:
What advantage does an aircraft have over a submarine or static ground-based missile launch platform?
It has many disadvantages.
I suppose over subs it has the speed of delivery - if the subs aren't in the right place at the right time, an A/C could get there quicker. Over static long-range missiles the advantage (back in the cold war) was that aircraft couldn't be targeted by ICBMs so they were kept in the air ready to strike if the USSR hit all the ground-based facilities at once. It has many disadvantages.
trashbat said:
an it? You'd have to be very close or very fast to make up for something that goes at Mach 23, no?
You also need to factor in scramble time for an aircraft I guess.
Fair enough - just checked and Trident has a range of 7,500 miles which is more than adequate to make an aircraft pretty much unnecessary. You also need to factor in scramble time for an aircraft I guess.
V8 Fettler said:
Aircraft are vulnerable, SSBN-type submarines aren't.
Plus:- submarines are better at hiding
- the linger time of a nuclear-powered submarine is indefinite; limited mostly by food supplies, I guess
- an ICBM doesn't have a crew or a piece of hardware you want back
- a nuclear-armed aircraft mishap is probably worse than a submarine-related one
- aircraft can potentially be captured with payload
If you want to bring about death to everyone, planes are s
t. </armchair>Martin4356111 said:
Afternoon all,
I’m doing a bit of a project with work and part of its includes giving a 20 to 30 minute talk on a specific subject. Pistonheads is always good for getting the opinions and views of others and I don’t think there are any real wrong answers, just your opinion?
The question I’ve been posed is…
"What were the prime factors which prompted the RAF to give up its tactical nuclear weapons? Should RAF procurement plans once again consider the merits of long range, dual role (nuclear/conventional) stand-off bombers in support of distant theatres of operations?"
I’ve first found out the difference between a tactical weapon and a strategic weapon which I’m happy with. However, it would appear that the only real reason the RAF gave up its nuclear role was that the end of the cold war was fast approaching and there was no real need to replace it. The UK was then left with one single nuclear system, TRIDENT.
We didn’t replace the V force bombers as we had Tornado (which was totally inferior and of no use for delivering nuclear weapons at long range). Does anyone else think we need to look at another long range bomber? The US and Russia still do and they are forging ahead with replacement programmes?
I’d welcome anyone’s opinions and views!
Cheers
Martin
Is this the Blue Peter does MAD course?I’m doing a bit of a project with work and part of its includes giving a 20 to 30 minute talk on a specific subject. Pistonheads is always good for getting the opinions and views of others and I don’t think there are any real wrong answers, just your opinion?
The question I’ve been posed is…
"What were the prime factors which prompted the RAF to give up its tactical nuclear weapons? Should RAF procurement plans once again consider the merits of long range, dual role (nuclear/conventional) stand-off bombers in support of distant theatres of operations?"
I’ve first found out the difference between a tactical weapon and a strategic weapon which I’m happy with. However, it would appear that the only real reason the RAF gave up its nuclear role was that the end of the cold war was fast approaching and there was no real need to replace it. The UK was then left with one single nuclear system, TRIDENT.
We didn’t replace the V force bombers as we had Tornado (which was totally inferior and of no use for delivering nuclear weapons at long range). Does anyone else think we need to look at another long range bomber? The US and Russia still do and they are forging ahead with replacement programmes?
I’d welcome anyone’s opinions and views!
Cheers
Martin
The UK nuclear capability is a deterrent - meaning you hit us we'll hit you back. Once SSBNs came along they were infinity better placed to do that than a bunch of (already fried) V Bombers in Lincolnshire.
The RAF didn't "give up" its capability - better ones existed therfore funding was withdrawn.
We didn't replace the V bombers because we didn't need to.
The US & Russia persue long range nuclear bombing because submarine launches are detectable and they want to boast of an overwhelming first strike capability - as both regimes exist only on the strength of willy waving its a point scoring exercise - not because they "need" the capability.
I you think about it, there are two major factors that have lead to Nuclear weapons taking something of a backseat, a "keep in the cupboard in case th every worst happens" kind of weapon.
1) The social consequences of a 1st world government using ANY kind of nuclear weapon, no matter the size or type. I can't think of a single justification these days, where any use would lead to such a massive social backlash as to massively outweigh the purpose of the weapon use in the first place.
2) Highly accurate conventional armament. At the end of WW2, when 1000 bomber carpet bombing was still occurring, the high yield nuclear weapon gave the allies a huge advantage, when you could level a city with one aircraft. Fast forward 60 years and modern "smart" delivery systems mean you don't need to, and almost certainly don't want to, level the whole city! No need to deliver a 100KT weapon, when 10 500lbs cruise missiles can achieve the same result.
So, basically, you can't use them for social reasons, you don't need to use them for tactical reasons, so to "give them up" in return for some other capability seems sensible to me. We only keep the Subs as the "ultimate deterrent" and even then i'm not sure when or under what circumstances we'd ever want or need to use those. So why spend Billions of pounds on something you can never use?
1) The social consequences of a 1st world government using ANY kind of nuclear weapon, no matter the size or type. I can't think of a single justification these days, where any use would lead to such a massive social backlash as to massively outweigh the purpose of the weapon use in the first place.
2) Highly accurate conventional armament. At the end of WW2, when 1000 bomber carpet bombing was still occurring, the high yield nuclear weapon gave the allies a huge advantage, when you could level a city with one aircraft. Fast forward 60 years and modern "smart" delivery systems mean you don't need to, and almost certainly don't want to, level the whole city! No need to deliver a 100KT weapon, when 10 500lbs cruise missiles can achieve the same result.
So, basically, you can't use them for social reasons, you don't need to use them for tactical reasons, so to "give them up" in return for some other capability seems sensible to me. We only keep the Subs as the "ultimate deterrent" and even then i'm not sure when or under what circumstances we'd ever want or need to use those. So why spend Billions of pounds on something you can never use?
mebe said:
Is this the Blue Peter does MAD course?
The UK nuclear capability is a deterrent - meaning you hit us we'll hit you back. Once SSBNs came along they were infinity better placed to do that than a bunch of (already fried) V Bombers in Lincolnshire.
The RAF didn't "give up" its capability - better ones existed therfore funding was withdrawn.
We didn't replace the V bombers because we didn't need to.
The US & Russia persue long range nuclear bombing because submarine launches are detectable and they want to boast of an overwhelming first strike capability - as both regimes exist only on the strength of willy waving its a point scoring exercise - not because they "need" the capability.
I didn't write the question, I've to answer it?The UK nuclear capability is a deterrent - meaning you hit us we'll hit you back. Once SSBNs came along they were infinity better placed to do that than a bunch of (already fried) V Bombers in Lincolnshire.
The RAF didn't "give up" its capability - better ones existed therfore funding was withdrawn.
We didn't replace the V bombers because we didn't need to.
The US & Russia persue long range nuclear bombing because submarine launches are detectable and they want to boast of an overwhelming first strike capability - as both regimes exist only on the strength of willy waving its a point scoring exercise - not because they "need" the capability.
Not sure what you Blue Peter comment is meant to mean?
mebe said:
The US & Russia persue long range nuclear bombing because submarine launches are detectable and they want to boast of an overwhelming first strike capability - as both regimes exist only on the strength of willy waving its a point scoring exercise - not because they "need" the capability.
Surely a fleet of Russian bombers heading towards New York is quite detectable too?mebe said:
Martin4356111 said:
Afternoon all,
I’m doing a bit of a project with work and part of its includes giving a 20 to 30 minute talk on a specific subject. Pistonheads is always good for getting the opinions and views of others and I don’t think there are any real wrong answers, just your opinion?
The question I’ve been posed is…
"What were the prime factors which prompted the RAF to give up its tactical nuclear weapons? Should RAF procurement plans once again consider the merits of long range, dual role (nuclear/conventional) stand-off bombers in support of distant theatres of operations?"
I’ve first found out the difference between a tactical weapon and a strategic weapon which I’m happy with. However, it would appear that the only real reason the RAF gave up its nuclear role was that the end of the cold war was fast approaching and there was no real need to replace it. The UK was then left with one single nuclear system, TRIDENT.
We didn’t replace the V force bombers as we had Tornado (which was totally inferior and of no use for delivering nuclear weapons at long range). Does anyone else think we need to look at another long range bomber? The US and Russia still do and they are forging ahead with replacement programmes?
I’d welcome anyone’s opinions and views!
Cheers
Martin
Is this the Blue Peter does MAD course?I’m doing a bit of a project with work and part of its includes giving a 20 to 30 minute talk on a specific subject. Pistonheads is always good for getting the opinions and views of others and I don’t think there are any real wrong answers, just your opinion?
The question I’ve been posed is…
"What were the prime factors which prompted the RAF to give up its tactical nuclear weapons? Should RAF procurement plans once again consider the merits of long range, dual role (nuclear/conventional) stand-off bombers in support of distant theatres of operations?"
I’ve first found out the difference between a tactical weapon and a strategic weapon which I’m happy with. However, it would appear that the only real reason the RAF gave up its nuclear role was that the end of the cold war was fast approaching and there was no real need to replace it. The UK was then left with one single nuclear system, TRIDENT.
We didn’t replace the V force bombers as we had Tornado (which was totally inferior and of no use for delivering nuclear weapons at long range). Does anyone else think we need to look at another long range bomber? The US and Russia still do and they are forging ahead with replacement programmes?
I’d welcome anyone’s opinions and views!
Cheers
Martin
The UK nuclear capability is a deterrent - meaning you hit us we'll hit you back. Once SSBNs came along they were infinity better placed to do that than a bunch of (already fried) V Bombers in Lincolnshire.
The RAF didn't "give up" its capability - better ones existed therfore funding was withdrawn.
We didn't replace the V bombers because we didn't need to.
The US & Russia persue long range nuclear bombing because submarine launches are detectable and they want to boast of an overwhelming first strike capability - as both regimes exist only on the strength of willy waving its a point scoring exercise - not because they "need" the capability.
However the whole "point" of tactical aircraft in a Strike role was that the attack would be seen as just that, tactical...
Launching a UK SLBM as a tactical, "low yield" attack is fraught with the danger of unintended escalation...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_deliv...
Cruise missiles can carry a nuclear warhead. They have a shorter range and smaller payloads than ballistic missiles, so their warheads are smaller and less powerful.
The BGM/UGM-109 Tomahawk sea-launched cruise missile is capable of carrying nuclear warheads, but does not in present configurations.
... nuclear-armed cruise missiles are amongst the least deployed of all nuclear weapons, as their deployment is restricted by treaties such as SALT II...
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff