HMS Queen Elizabeth

[davepoth]

MartG said:

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....

I have a feeling that the current shenanigans with Russia are going to reveal that the nuclear deterrent no longer has any real power. If Putin can ride roughshod over our protests, what will everyone else think?

Certainly I think this will have shown people like Argentina that there is no chance at all that we would fire nukes in anger. And as soon as people start thinking that way they're about as useful as a chocolate teapot.

[saaby93]

MartG said:

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....

Is it Putin or is it EU (who is the well known president)?

At what point do you say enough is enough theyre getting to close?
If Scotland decided to join Russia?
Yorkshire?

[mph1977]

doogz said:

XJ Flyer said:

Seriously it would probably make more sense to scrap the whole project then default on any contract penalties using emergency powers and spend the money on a massive upgrade of our independent nuclear deterrent.

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?

launch, control , physics pakages all UK developed - totally operationally independent

it;s the tube that holds trident together and the engines that a common with the US a but we don;t 'rent' those either they get exchanged from a pool when serviced but the UK owns it's missiles ( exchange basis for parts shouldn't be an alien concept to car forum )

[V8 Fettler]

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.....

Probably both.

Is the current launch process in the public domain? Probably not. Assuming there's some sort of authorisation code issued by Call_me_Dave, then how difficult would it be for an element of the code to originate from the White House?

Skipper on a British submarine .... ?

[mph1977]

V8 Fettler said:

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.....

Probably both.

Is the current launch process in the public domain? Probably not. Assuming there's some sort of authorisation code issued by Call_me_Dave, then how difficult would it be for an element of the code to originate from the White House?

Skipper on a British submarine .... ?

the launch process for the British SLBMs is to a greater or lesser extent in the public domain .

the uk does not use the a system like the US where a centralised command is required ... there is no UK equivalent to 'the football' as it is not needed.

there are several systems by which the UK Chain of Command communicates with the sub fleet, there are also a number of fall back options

the control of the systems to fire the weapons are entirely contained on the boat unlike the US system .

this is why the final links in the UK's assurance system are surface and try and get radio 4 / world service and the 'letters of last resort' ...

[V8 Fettler]

mph1977 said:

V8 Fettler said:

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.....

Probably both.

Is the current launch process in the public domain? Probably not. Assuming there's some sort of authorisation code issued by Call_me_Dave, then how difficult would it be for an element of the code to originate from the White House?

Skipper on a British submarine .... ?

the launch process for the British SLBMs is to a greater or lesser extent in the public domain .

the uk does not use the a system like the US where a centralised command is required ... there is no UK equivalent to 'the football' as it is not needed.

there are several systems by which the UK Chain of Command communicates with the sub fleet, there are also a number of fall back options

the control of the systems to fire the weapons are entirely contained on the boat unlike the US system .

this is why the final links in the UK's assurance system are surface and try and get radio 4 / world service and the 'letters of last resort' ...

Link to reliable info please.

[mph1977]

V8 Fettler said:

Link to reliable info please.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letters_of_last_resort

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/70...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/sto...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1090400/HM...

http://www.slate.com/articles/life/the_spectator/2...

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greate...

[XJ Flyer]

doogz said:

XJ Flyer said:

Seriously it would probably make more sense to scrap the whole project then default on any contract penalties using emergency powers and spend the money on a massive upgrade of our independent nuclear deterrent.

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?

Admittedly the 'independent' nuclear deterrent is anything but for the reasons I've referred to.But if/when push comes to shove in a real argument with a really powerfully conventionally and nuclear armed adversary like Russia that nuclear deterrent would be the only thing standing in the way of a total walk over.

As for a carrier force that is limited to 'multi role'/ground attack there are really only two types of aircraft air superiority fighters and targets.It is obvious that a non catapult equipped 'carrier' is always going to be limited to the latter.Although there may be exceptions which prove that rule.Exceptions which again the government obviously want to avoid to save money.

www.defencetalk.com/naval-eurofighter-an-aircraft-...

Edited by XJ Flyer on Saturday 6th September 13:34

[XJ Flyer]

saaby93 said:

MartG said:

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....

Is it Putin or is it EU (who is the well known president)?

At what point do you say enough is enough theyre getting to close?
If Scotland decided to join Russia?
Yorkshire?

The Russians are probably saying exactly the same thing if we allow NATO to move into Crimea at what point do we say they are getting too close when they reach Moscow and Vladivostok.

It would be fair to say that if we go to war over the eastward expansion of NATO ( which is the problem not vice versa ) it would have been our own fault not the Russians.However at that point it won't make any difference to us who started it.Meanwhile there's no way we can defeat them using our conventional capabilities and never was.

However the inevitability of the mutually assured destruction outcome of the nuclear deterrent has ( so far ) kept the peace by concentrating minds on all sides to avoid going to war and hopefully that would be no different now.

[Dr Jekyll]

XJ Flyer said:

The Russians are probably saying exactly the same thing if we allow NATO to move into Crimea at what point do we say they are getting too close when they reach Moscow and Vladivostok.

No, because the Russians no perfectly well we aren't going to attack them.

[XJ Flyer]

Dr Jekyll said:

XJ Flyer said:

The Russians are probably saying exactly the same thing if we allow NATO to move into Crimea at what point do we say they are getting too close when they reach Moscow and Vladivostok.

No, because the Russians no perfectly well we aren't going to attack them.

Trust me that isn't and never will be how Russia views NATO.Probably with some justification now being that it is now made up of a number of east European countries that hate Russia in general.Together with an obvious eastern expansionist policy.

Which in terms of the topic make upgrading the nuclear deterrent more important than bothering with a cheap inferior 'aircraft carrier' force.The fact that NATO seems to be more interested in thinking that Russia could be defeated by conventional warfare says everything about who seems to be looking for trouble in this case.The fact that it is also looking for trouble on the cheap says even more.

[saaby93]

NATO is a different alignment to EU but with EU expanding eastwards does Russia see that as NATO (i.e. including US) expanding eastwards
Should all those orange countries be in the EU and what if Russia was orange too?

[V8 Fettler]

mph1977 said:

V8 Fettler said:

Link to reliable info please.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letters_of_last_resort

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/70...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/sto...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1090400/HM...

http://www.slate.com/articles/life/the_spectator/2...

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greate...

Thanks, I'll have a read.

[XJ Flyer]

saaby93 said:

NATO is a different alignment to EU but with EU expanding eastwards does Russia see that as NATO (i.e. including US) expanding eastward

So far most/all of the east european EU expansion has also involved NATO membership going with that.The latest of which ( would have ) been Ukraine as planned by the US/NATO since at least 2008.It seems that it was that bridge too far which finally pushed things over the edge back into the old Cold War situation.I'd guess that if this goes ahead things could get very 'interesting' in that regard.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/09/05/uk-ukrain...


In which case like most other conventional forces an aircraft carrier group would be like taking a knife to a gunfight if things finally do kick off because of it.Especially one that can't 'carry' real fighter aircraft and that won't be ready until early 2020's anyway.

www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/russia-plannin...

[XJ Flyer]

davepoth said:

MartG said:

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....

I have a feeling that the current shenanigans with Russia are going to reveal that the nuclear deterrent no longer has any real power. If Putin can ride roughshod over our protests, what will everyone else think?

Certainly I think this will have shown people like Argentina that there is no chance at all that we would fire nukes in anger. And as soon as people start thinking that way they're about as useful as a chocolate teapot.

Ironically the fact that NATO seems to be going for the conventional approach to defence against Russia is a sign of weakness in regard to our commitment to the nuclear deterrent and the strategy of mutually assured destruction.Which actually makes war with Russia and a nuclear attack against the west more likely not less.As for Argentina threatening to use,let alone using,nukes over a small argument like the Falklands would have been using a sledgehammer to crack a nut probably with a US response to match.

Edited by XJ Flyer on Saturday 6th September 19:00

[Lurking Lawyer]

V8 Fettler said:

Link to reliable info please.

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20121026065214/http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/E2054A40-7833-48EF-991C-7F48E05B2C9D/0/nuclear190705.pdf

But then if you're sufficiently sceptical, I suppose the obvious response is "Well, the MoD would say that, wouldn't it?"

EDIT: no more from me on this point - the thread has been somewhat derailed!

[V8 Fettler]

mph1977 said:

V8 Fettler said:

Link to reliable info please.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letters_of_last_resort

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/70...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/sto...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1090400/HM...

http://www.slate.com/articles/life/the_spectator/2...

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greate...

All links lead to the MOD.

In the real world, it's bizarre and illogical for the US to place greater trust in UK submarine commanders than in their own (US) submarine commanders. Therefore it is highly likely that there is control input from the US for UK launches.

Letter of last resort probably now reads "Proceed to US, if no-one's in then sail to Australia".

[V8 Fettler]

Lurking Lawyer said:

V8 Fettler said:

Link to reliable info please.

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20121026065214/http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/E2054A40-7833-48EF-991C-7F48E05B2C9D/0/nuclear190705.pdf

But then if you're sufficiently sceptical, I suppose the obvious response is "Well, the MoD would say that, wouldn't it?"

EDIT: no more from me on this point - the thread has been somewhat derailed!

MOD letter said:

The detailed procedures for the use of UK nuclear weapons are highly classified and their
disclosure would prejudice the effectiveness of the UK’s deterrent by giving an adversary an
insight into UK decision-making processes, hence damaging UK defence interests

The launch processes are not within the public domain, quite rightly.

[Godalmighty83]

OK, this is seriously still going?

OK, I'm going to add two pictures one has HMS Queen Elizabeth in, the other has something which has nothing to do with any aircraft carrier in any form or fashion, I'm wondering who can tell which is which.

[saaby93]

tricky one