Debate on the Future of the Royal Navy

[[R-DEV]Rhino]

Originally Posted by [R-MOD]Bob_Marley

So you'll put billions of pounds and hundreds of lives onto something that essentially won't be used over the course of its service life.

Yup. Sounds smart to me.

So I take it you can predict the future then?

Originally Posted by [R-MOD]Bob_Marley

You're missing a key point - Those missiles are on submarines. They're hard to detect and don't have to strike instantly - days, weeks or even months after an initial attack retaliation is possible. Air delivery does not have that option - aircraft are tied to airbases or carriers, which means they can easily (in comparison) be destroyed before a counter attack is launched.

Thats the advantage of submarines - they're easy to miss and if you miss even one, you're boned.

Of course there is no guarentee - there never can be. But its not about guarentees, its about probability. With a submarine based defence system the probability is that the UK will be able to retalitate with at least one of its nuclear armed submarines regardless of how well planned an attack upon the UK is.

Did you read my post? I did say that and I do fully understand that point...

Originally Posted by [R-MOD]Bob_Marley

Other than a submarine is harder to detect so it could stay around without support for a bit to get into a postion before launching its missile against the country

My point being that an airborne, carrier based nuclear deterrent is FAR cheaper when you already have the carriers and the jets and all you need is the bombs and a few modifications, than developing an entire new submarine and maybe an entirely new missile system too. Although yes, nothing like as effective, its still something.

Originally Posted by [R-MOD]Bob_Marley

OK, this is starting to make my head hurt - it doesn't matter if its supersonic or not. Ballistic missile! Completely different attack profile!

Yes I do understand that but the Aster missiles are designed to also be able to take out aircraft etc as well, there is nothing to stop them also shooting upwards and also having a chance of hitting the target. These missiles (and radars that go with it) are much more advanced than what the US Navy etc are using currently.

Although this is the only Anti Ship Ballistic Missile in the world we are talking about here and it can only be fired from the shore.

Originally Posted by [R-MOD]Bob_Marley

Rhino starting a grammar and spelling argument?

Well, I'll be nice. I'm not going to get involved in that one.

hehe na I just found that bit funny was all

Originally Posted by [R-MOD]Bob_Marley

No, I said they should get the F-35C (bigger, longer ranged, heavier payload, no VTOL system taking up weight and space) and that the option was being looked at, I never said they are getting the F-35C.

Na you didn't say that, but I was also not 100% on what you said as well since you said "looks like" although it was pretty common knowledge too that it was extremely unlikely.

Originally Posted by [R-MOD]Bob_Marley

Uh, the F35B looks like its going to be scrapped in favor of the CV version, because the B version is too expensive and its payload capability is a joke and the Queen Liz is going to be redesigned to deal with it. source

Originally Posted by [R-MOD]Bob_Marley

Abandoned, actually. Damage prevented it from submerging but it was most certainly not sunk.

Kinda hard to define if a submarine is sunk or not, to me if the Submarine has no crew in it, its non-operational and is sitting at the bottom of the sea without being able to surface again, its sunk

Originally Posted by [R-MOD]Bob_Marley

Scrap the other big ships too. No need for fleet defence if theres no fleet do defend.

And what happens when someone with a powerful navy decides to blockade the Suez Canal or something?

[[R-DEV]Rhino]

Originally Posted by [R-MOD]Mongolian_dude

I've always wondered why the MoD doesn't employ Miniature Carries, as opposed Super Carriers. Considering our naval air arm will be entirely VTOL, has the need for runways has not essentially disappeared? With that said, could we not deploy multiple smaller carriers, capable of carrying 5-10 aircraft and their associated logistics? That way, we have the option of deploying our naval airpower more flexibly. Also, it allows us the choice to deploy and spend less on aircraft and their carriers, and develop some form of Super-Frigate for an almost-impenetrable air defence, that could tackle these nasty little Chinese missiles Bob speaks of

This way, the MoD isn't putting all our eggs in one basket.


...mongol...

This page explains it pretty well: Navy Matters | Future Aircraft Carrier Part 23

Can't be asked to go though and quote all the bits but its mainly down to the amount of sorties that can be delivered by how many aircraft etc and they found around 40 aircraft was the magic number that was capable of pulling off 108 sorties in 24hrs.

Smaller ships are also less efficient and would actually cost a lot more to build multiple smaller ships that could carry the same amount of aircraft then two large ships.

Right now we only have 3 small aircraft carriers and normally only one of them is our high readiness strike carrier at any one time while one of them is most likley getting an upgrade etc and the other, I'm not sure, taking a brake?

[[R-DEV]Bob_Marley]

Originally Posted by [R-DEV]Rhino

So I take it you can predict the future then?

Oh yes. Seems Herbiie and yourself can too. You know, with knowing that Britian will never fight a state that is capable of destroying an aircraft carrier and whatnot.

Originally Posted by [R-DEV]Rhino

Did you read my post? I did say that and I do fully understand that point...



My point being that an airborne, carrier based nuclear deterrent is FAR cheaper when you already have the carriers and the jets and all you need is the bombs and a few modifications, than developing an entire new submarine and maybe an entirely new missile system too. Although yes, nothing like as effective, its still something.

Thats the point - it isn't something. An ineffective deterrent is no deterrent at all.

Originally Posted by [R-DEV]Rhino

Yes I do understand that but the Aster missiles are designed to also be able to take out aircraft etc as well, there is nothing to stop them also shooting upwards and also having a chance of hitting the target. These missiles (and radars that go with it) are much more advanced than what the US Navy etc are using currently.

Although this is the only Anti Ship Ballistic Missile in the world we are talking about here and it can only be fired from the shore.

And do what? Put Anti-Ballistic Missiles on a ship? You crazy? Did you see the huff the Russians got in over 10 of the damn things being placed in a land base in Poland? And you wanna put enough of them for fleet defence purposes on each and every Type-45?

Also, Harpoon (you know, the old yank missile from the '70s) exploits this flaw as well - using the "pop-up" attack profile saucy sauce once its locked it climbs and then dives more or less straight down onto the target - if it isn't intercepted before it makes its manuver there is no way to intercept it.

Originally Posted by [R-DEV]Rhino

And what happens when someone with a powerful navy decides to blockade the Suez Canal or something?

They'll do what everyone does when they want to blocade Suez - blow up some ships in it, rendering it useless.

Also submarines.

About the fighting at night - my point was that they operate fine at night without reliable night scopes, so where's the Problem?

Now, Hecklar and Coch (again spelling fail) refusing to make replacement L85A2s...

As the old honda advert goes - candles are fine, why bother with the lightbulb?

Also, no company, anywhere in the world, has the ability to make replacement L85A2s - the machinery to make the SA80 series was scrapped in the 90s. All the "new" versions are simply modifications of the old rifles.

[[R-DEV]Rhino]

Originally Posted by [R-MOD]Bob_Marley

Oh yes. Seems Herbiie and yourself can too. You know, with knowing that Britian will never fight a state that is capable of destroying an aircraft carrier and whatnot.

No I didn't say that can you please try to not put words in my mouth. What I was is you no one can predict the future and fighting a country that can or can not destroy an aircraft carrier, I would still rather have an aircraft carrier to fight with than to be left helpless and let our defences do there job as best as they can. Infantry get hit by bullets too, nothing to stop the bullet from hitting the solider, although the body armour provides some chance of survival, do you think we should also put our infantry on the "scrap yard" since they are so venerable?

Everything has its weak points, the point being you avoid showing your weak points tactically by using your tools in the right way.

Originally Posted by [R-MOD]Bob_Marley

Thats the point - it isn't something. An ineffective deterrent is no deterrent at all.

To Russia and China etc yes, but for smaller countries that might want to try and bully us, no sir it is not.

For Russian and China etc, like I've said, if they start throwing there weight behind nuclear arms, America for sure will be involved and 99.9% chance we will be on the same side.

Originally Posted by [R-MOD]Bob_Marley

And do what? Put Anti-Ballistic Missiles on a ship? You crazy? Did you see the huff the Russians got in over 10 of the damn things being placed in a land base in Poland? And you wanna put enough of them for fleet defence purposes on each and every Type-45?

... Again please stop trying to put words in my mouth...

No I said there is no reason why the Aster can not shoot up and as such, why dose it not have a chance of being able to take out the target? Please explain to me why a top down attack as such is so hard to destroy as I really can not see why?

Originally Posted by [R-MOD]Bob_Marley

Also submarines.

And without any air cover submarines are very venerable from air attack.

[[R-DEV]Bob_Marley]

Originally Posted by [R-DEV]Rhino

No I didn't say that can you please try to not put words in my mouth. What I was is you no one can predict the future and fighting a country that can or can not destroy an aircraft carrier, I would still rather have an aircraft carrier to fight with than to be left helpless and let our defences do there job as best as they can. Infantry get hit by bullets too, nothing to stop the bullet from hitting the solider, although the body armour provides some chance of survival, do you think we should also put our infantry on the "scrap yard" since they are so venerable?

Everything has its weak points, the point being you avoid showing your weak points tactically by using your tools in the right way.

You're missing the point - infantry, tanks, aircraft, etc are cost effective. The losses are affordable. Its harsh, but its the truth - the Armed forces can afford to loose an infantryman, an APC full of troops, a small vessel, etc. These forces are not expendible but neither are they irreplaceable. It cannot afford to loose a carrier when the whole of British naval strategy is based around the damn things.

Virtually all of the conventional strike power of the Navy would be tied up to two vessels that can potentially be destroyed with a single conventional weapon each. So, the carrier goes down, the ability to effectivly enguage land targets with it, plus the crew, plus 40+ aircraft on board. The whole of the UK force projection capabilities lost in the blink of an eye.

Not only do the carriers need to be scrapped, there needs to be a major rethink in how the navy operates. I would personally favour a navy on the Israeli model.

Originally Posted by [R-DEV]Rhino

To Russia and China etc yes, but for smaller countries that might want to try and bully us, no sir it is not.

For Russian and China etc, like I've said, if they start throwing there weight behind nuclear arms, America for sure will be involved and 99.9% chance we will be on the same side.

Right, so you do endorse the offensive use of Nuclear weapons. Thats fine. Its not my position, but everyone is entitled to thier opinion.

But let us say for a moment that you don't. Why can conventional forces not be used to achieve the same result, with significantly fewer civilian casualties? After all, modern "smart" weapons allow pinpoint accuracy and so can be used exclusivly against military targets with minimal risks to civilians. The same cannot be said for nuclear weapons. I mean its not as if you're suggesting that the British nuclear capabiltiy should be retained purely for its capability to inflict civilian casualties, is it? After all, these are small states with limited nuclear arsenals, why could a precision conventional strike be used to solve the problem rather than unleashing atomic weapons?

Ah, putting defence in the hands of another state. A marvellous strategy. Been working brilliantly for every state thats tried it. Take a read of the Mealian dialogue.

Originally Posted by [R-DEV]Rhino

... Again please stop trying to put words in my mouth...

I'll stop when you do.

Originally Posted by [R-DEV]Rhino

No I said there is no reason why the Aster can not shoot up and as such, why dose it not have a chance of being able to take out the target? Please explain to me why a top down attack as such is so hard to destroy as I really can not see why?

Firstly, the systems are not designed to deal with a top-down attack. Secondly, particularly in the case of the DF-21, ballisitic missiles are quite unimaginably fast.

Lets do a quick comparison - the P-270 Moskit (AKA SS-N-22 Sunburn), for example. Widley reguarded as one of the deadliest anti-ship missiles in service today. Now, it is claimed that the Moskit can be intercepted by current AM systems. The Moskit tops out at about 2,800 km/h.

The DF-21, on the other hand travels at an average of 10,000 km/h. There is simply no time to shoot it down. Add to that it is a smaller target (the missile splits into multiple MaRVs) and you've got yourself a winner!

[Herbiie]

Originally Posted by [R-MOD]Bob_Marley

As the old honda advert goes - candles are fine, why bother with the lightbulb?

There are other things the British Military needs alot more than night scopes, we're doing fine without them, we're not doing fine without hundreds of other things that we don't have, such as Anti-Structural Ammunition for a start and .50 Calibre Machine Guns that work properly.

Also - the Royal Navy's Entire Strike power won't just be on the Two carrier, it's the carrier and Assault Ships which have Helicopter Platforms.

And if we only have 2 of them, then the defences we need to take out a ballistic missile only need to be concentrated on a small area, the carriers need to be found by the enemy, which is again harder if there are only 2 of them, and them they need to get reliable information as to their speed, direction etc. so the missile will actually hit it's target. They have to do all this, while a large portion of the RN is trying to stop them. Good Luck enemy.

Back to Politics:
Monster Raving Loony Party will find a way to settle alll arguments. I reckon Secret Squirrel is already looking into Defence Problems....

*edit*
Also please learn from History - We need a Navy that can handle every situation we're going to be engaged in. We simply are not going to be engaged in WW3, the likely hood of that is almost 0. We need a Navy that can handle our needs at the moment as well as others - larger Air Craft carriers can do this, whereas as several small ons will just spread ourselves too thin, so that it takes too long to react to anything.

[[R-DEV]Rhino]

Originally Posted by [R-MOD]Bob_Marley

Right, so you do endorse the offensive use of Nuclear weapons. Thats fine. Its not my position, but everyone is entitled to thier opinion.

Na its not offensive (although it can be used as it if need be), it dose excatly the same thing as Trident, just not as effectively but much cheaper. There is no reason why we can not have the carrier paroling off the coast of a potential unstable country that could launch aginst as, and as soon as it dose we launch our jets that are in a high reediness state, and since they are also stealth they have a high portability of getting to the target and dropping there pay load.

Yes they are not as effective as a submarine but it can do the same job if need be, while also being flexible to do other jobs where as Trident isn't anything like as flexible.

Originally Posted by [R-MOD]Bob_Marley

But let us say for a moment that you don't. Why can conventional forces not be used to achieve the same result, with significantly fewer civilian casualties? After all, modern "smart" weapons allow pinpoint accuracy and so can be used exclusivly against military targets with minimal risks to civilians. The same cannot be said for nuclear weapons. I mean its not as if you're suggesting that the British nuclear capabiltiy should be retained purely for its capability to inflict civilian casualties, is it? After all, these are small states with limited nuclear arsenals, why could a precision conventional strike be used to solve the problem rather than unleashing atomic weapons?

Yes smart weapons are the best way, but if it comes down to that level I would like to be prepared.

Originally Posted by [R-MOD]Bob_Marley

Ah, putting defence in the hands of another state. A marvellous strategy. Been working brilliantly for every state thats tried it. Take a read of the Mealian dialogue.

Well by you suggesting we fully get rid of any nuclear deterrent is excatly what your asking for, is it not?

Originally Posted by [R-MOD]Bob_Marley

I'll stop when you do.

Give me an example?

Originally Posted by [R-MOD]Bob_Marley

Firstly, the systems are not designed to deal with a top-down attack.

But they are designed to be able to fire directly up into the sky are they not? Or how excatly are they meant to be able to shoot down aircraft?

Originally Posted by [R-MOD]Bob_Marley

Secondly, particularly in the case of the DF-21, ballisitic missiles are quite unimaginably fast.

Lets do a quick comparison - the P-270 Moskit (AKA SS-N-22 Sunburn), for example. Widley reguarded as one of the deadliest anti-ship missiles in service today. Now, it is claimed that the Moskit can be intercepted by current AM systems. The Moskit tops out at about 2,800 km/h.

The DF-21, on the other hand travels at an average of 10,000 km/h. There is simply no time to shoot it down. Add to that it is a smaller target (the missile splits into multiple MaRVs) and you've got yourself a winner!

Mach 10 is not 10,000 km/h, its 3 402.9 m/s, which is 3.4 km/h which is only 0.6km/h faster than the Moskit. Yes quite a lot faster, but nothing like as fast as your saying it is.

Then the Aster 30 has a top speed of Mach 4.5; 1,400 m/s, yes its not as fast as any of the above, but its only got to intercept it head on and it dose not have to chase it, unless it was a very unusual situation.

So lets do a little maths here and take the worst case scenario of the DF-21 ASBM vs a Aster 30.

The DF-21 has a max range of 3,000km, and travels at 3.4km/s, meaning from launch to intercept it will take just under 15mins.

The Aster 30 has a max range of 120kms, the Sampson radar has a range of 400kms and should pick it up 2mins before impact, that's assuming there is no airborne early warning radar etc flying about which there would most likley be also, but I'm taking the worst case scenario again. The Aster 30 also has a max speed of Mach 4.5; 1,400 m/s.

Now I've got no exact range on when the DF-21 has its air burst or even if this missile has an air burst (which I doubt it dose since its got a nuclear warhead) but lets assume if it dose that it is most likley after the 120km range to the target.

Now If we launch the Aster 30 at excatly 2mins before impact, the Aster 30 will be able to intercept the missile 120km away from the target AND if we launch multiple missiles and at slightly different times as well we have a much larger chance of hitting it, and if they fail we still have the shorter ranged Aster 15s with a max range of 30kms we have a second line of defence, and if we need a 3rd line of defence we also have the Phalanx, Goal Keepers, DS30bs etc thou I doubt that is going to do much to a ballistic missile

All in all, I think that has a pretty good shot of taking out the target myself, also taking into account the Aster 30 has a very advanced steering system, since it dose not only just rely on flaps, but it also has a steering system much like a space shuttle, where you have multiple smaller rocket engines on each side that can blast it in anouther direction, which allows the Aster 30 to turn 90degs and it can preform such manoeuvres without losing aerodynamic performances, improving the precision of the impact on target.

Also if multiple missiles are launched against the fleet, each radar can constantly track over 300 different targets and there will also be multiple destroyers in the fleet so lets say there is only tow (thou most likley more, let alone the frigates etc too), that's 600 targets it could effectively track and each ship holds up to 48 missiles, which between only two destroys (thou would most likley be more in a scenario like this) that's 96 missiles and that's far more than the total amount of DF-21 missiles the Chinese has, let alone the amount of DF-21 ASBMs they have which will probably be something like 10 or 20 of them.

[[R-DEV]Bob_Marley]

Originally Posted by [R-DEV]Rhino

Na its not offensive (although it can be used as it if need be), it dose excatly the same thing as Trident, just not as effectively but much cheaper. There is no reason why we can not have the carrier paroling off the coast of a potential unstable country that could launch aginst as, and as soon as it dose we launch our jets that are in a high reediness state, and since they are also stealth they have a high portability of getting to the target and dropping there pay load.

Yes they are not as effective as a submarine but it can do the same job if need be, while also being flexible to do other jobs where as Trident isn't anything like as flexible.

Right, that means using nuclear weapons offensivly, as a first strike weapon and retaining them specifically because of thier ability to inflict very high civilian casualties. In that model an effective second strike capability would be impossible and you're essentially advocating gun boat diplomacy with nukes.

No, trident is not flexible, it is not designed to be flexible. it is, however something that an air launched nuclear arsenal is not - effective in its role as a deterrent.

With an air launched arsenal it is essentially being said "we have a large bomb and we'll use it on you" With a submarine launched system it says "we have a large bomb, we'll use it on you if you use yours on us and theres nothing you can do to stop it". So, you see it does not do nearly the same thing as a submarine based system.

Originally Posted by [R-DEV]Rhino

Yes smart weapons are the best way, but if it comes down to that level I would like to be prepared.

Prepared for what, commiting genocide?

Originally Posted by [R-DEV]Rhino

Well by you suggesting we fully get rid of any nuclear deterrent is excatly what your asking for, is it not?

I never said we should get rid of the deterrent - I said we should either get rid of it completley or replace it properly. Any option between the two will be expensive and ineffective. If the UK is going to rely on the US to provide its second stirke capability without any capabiltiy of our own (which is what you are suggesting) the UK may as well scrap the whole lot and provide a good example to the rest of the world. Its tricky to say "you can't have nukes" when the UK retains them for offensive purposes.

Your half way solution achieves the same thing but by spending much more money.





But they are designed to be able to fire directly up into the sky are they not? Or how excatly are they meant to be able to shoot down aircraft?

Originally Posted by [R-DEV]Rhino

Mach 10 is not 10,000 km/h, its 3 402.9 m/s, which is 3.4 km/h which is only 0.6km/h faster than the Moskit. Yes quite a lot faster, but nothing like as fast as your saying it is.

Then the Aster 30 has a top speed of Mach 4.5; 1,400 m/s, yes its not as fast as any of the above, but its only got to intercept it head on and it dose not have to chase it, unless it was a very unusual situation.

So lets do a little maths here and take the worst case scenario of the DF-21 ASBM vs a Aster 30.

The DF-21 has a max range of 3,000km, and travels at 3.4km/s, meaning from launch to intercept it will take just under 15mins.

The Aster 30 has a max range of 120kms, the Sampson radar has a range of 400kms and should pick it up 2mins before impact, that's assuming there is no airborne early warning radar etc flying about which there would most likley be also, but I'm taking the worst case scenario again. The Aster 30 also has a max speed of Mach 4.5; 1,400 m/s.

Now I've got no exact range on when the DF-21 has its air burst or even if this missile has an air burst (which I doubt it dose since its got a nuclear warhead) but lets assume if it dose that it is most likley after the 120km range to the target.

Now If we launch the Aster 30 at excatly 2mins before impact, the Aster 30 will be able to intercept the missile 120km away from the target AND if we launch multiple missiles and at slightly different times as well we have a much larger chance of hitting it, and if they fail we still have the shorter ranged Aster 15s with a max range of 30kms we have a second line of defence, and if we need a 3rd line of defence we also have the Phalanx, Goal Keepers, DS30bs etc thou I doubt that is going to do much to a ballistic missile

All in all, I think that has a pretty good shot of taking out the target myself, also taking into account the Aster 30 has a very advanced steering system, since it dose not only just rely on flaps, but it also has a steering system much like a space shuttle, where you have multiple smaller rocket engines on each side that can blast it in anouther direction, which allows the Aster 30 to turn 90degs and it can preform such manoeuvres without losing aerodynamic performances, improving the precision of the impact on target.

Also if multiple missiles are launched against the fleet, each radar can constantly track over 300 different targets and there will also be multiple destroyers in the fleet so lets say there is only tow (thou most likley more, let alone the frigates etc too), that's 600 targets it could effectively track and each ship holds up to 48 missiles, which between only two destroys (thou would most likley be more in a scenario like this) that's 96 missiles and that's far more than the total amount of DF-21 missiles the Chinese has, let alone the amount of DF-21 ASBMs they have which will probably be something like 10 or 20 of them.

Where did I say Mach 10?

Additionally, your figures of reaching 3000km in 15 minutes put the missile as being even faster than I suggested. And thats if its flying flat. Which it isn't.

Additionally, you're not thinking creativly. You're stuck thinking that states play fair in war - they won't. Lets face it - if you or I know the defensive capabilities of the Royal Navy's next generation air defence destroyers the Chinese certainly do.

Just a quick example of how such a system could be beaten - empty rocket tubes. Radar cannot tell the difference between a rocket with no warhead and a rocket with a warhead. Fire off a few hundred empty rockets (which are nice and cheap) in the general direction of the British fleet and they have to target and intercept all of them (which cannot be done) just in case they are armed.

Originally Posted by Herbiie

There are other things the British Military needs alot more than night scopes, we're doing fine without them, we're not doing fine without hundreds of other things that we don't have, such as Anti-Structural Ammunition for a start and .50 Calibre Machine Guns that work properly.

Thats the point - they're not doing fine without them, they've already got them. They need replacements, or will do in the near future.

Its not the Brownings that don't work, its that the MOD bought the wrong ammuntion. And there arn't enough of them

ASM is currently in the procurement phase and LASM is already in service.

Now, how could we solve this... with money! With money saved from scrapping the carriers!

Originally Posted by Herbiie

Also - the Royal Navy's Entire Strike power won't just be on the Two carrier, it's the carrier and Assault Ships which have Helicopter Platforms.

Which suffer from the same issues as carriers - too big, too vulnerable, too expensive, too many personel on board

Originally Posted by Herbiie

And if we only have 2 of them, then the defences we need to take out a ballistic missile only need to be concentrated on a small area, the carriers need to be found by the enemy, which is again harder if there are only 2 of them, and them they need to get reliable information as to their speed, direction etc. so the missile will actually hit it's target. They have to do all this, while a large portion of the RN is trying to stop them. Good Luck enemy.

See previous point.

Originally Posted by Herbiie

Also please learn from History - We need a Navy that can handle every situation we're going to be engaged in. We simply are not going to be engaged in WW3, the likely hood of that is almost 0. We need a Navy that can handle our needs at the moment as well as others - larger Air Craft carriers can do this, whereas as several small ons will just spread ourselves too thin, so that it takes too long to react to anything.

So having more naval craft that can be in more places at once would have a slower reaction time than having a few that cannot cover nearly as large an area.

Of course, that makes perfect sense.

Originally Posted by [R-MOD]Mongolian_dude

Its true, infact is VERY undemocratic. These people from this area are superior, deal with it!

...mongol...

Well of course - no elected government would ever change it, however. Democracy is all well and good until you're actually in power.

[[R-DEV]Rhino]

Originally Posted by [R-MOD]Bob_Marley

Right, that means using nuclear weapons offensivly, as a first strike weapon and retaining them specifically because of thier ability to inflict very high civilian casualties. In that model an effective second strike capability would be impossible and you're essentially advocating gun boat diplomacy with nukes.

No, trident is not flexible, it is not designed to be flexible. it is, however something that an air launched nuclear arsenal is not - effective in its role as a deterrent.

With an air launched arsenal it is essentially being said "we have a large bomb and we'll use it on you" With a submarine launched system it says "we have a large bomb, we'll use it on you if you use yours on us and theres nothing you can do to stop it". So, you see it does not do nearly the same thing as a submarine based system.


Prepared for what, commiting genocide?


I never said we should get rid of the deterrent - I said we should either get rid of it completley or replace it properly. Any option between the two will be expensive and ineffective. If the UK is going to rely on the US to provide its second stirke capability without any capabiltiy of our own (which is what you are suggesting) the UK may as well scrap the whole lot and provide a good example to the rest of the world. Its tricky to say "you can't have nukes" when the UK retains them for offensive purposes.

Your half way solution achieves the same thing but by spending much more money.

do you even read my posts or do you just read the first line of each paragraph or something?

I do agree its not as effective but because its not as effective it dose not mean there is 0% chance of success of it being used in a defensive manner than what your suggesting. I do agree its chances of success is much lower than that of Trident etc but it is better than nothing and it is much cheaper than developing an entirely new class of submarines, possibly a new set of nukes too, estimated at around $15bn, where these new carriers + aircraft come to 4.1bn which we have already spent pretty much, like it or not and to get the bombs which we could possibly buy 2nd hand off the Americans if we really wanted, which would add up to a considerably smaller price tag than that of a new Trident system.

And prepared for WW3 or w/e the world may throw at us...

and my "1/2 way suggestion" dose not archive the same thing and it would not cost that much more money, epically compared to the $15bn it would cost to replace Trident.

Thou I have to admit I am begging to become more inclined with getting rid of our nuclear deterrent altogether since in some ways it makes us a little less likley to become a target of an attack than processing nukes, but in other ways it makes us more venerable to attacks and to be bullied as well.

Originally Posted by [R-MOD]Bob_Marley

Where did I say Mach 10?

Additionally, your figures of reaching 3000km in 15 minutes put the missile as being even faster than I suggested. And thats if its flying flat. Which it isn't.

You said 10,000km/h when according to the Wiki, its real speed is Mach 10, which is like I said, 3.4 km/h, which is not even faster than you suggested of 10,000 km/h even if you account for the proper trajectory which yes I missed off my calculations.

Originally Posted by [R-MOD]Bob_Marley

Additionally, you're not thinking creativly. You're stuck thinking that states play fair in war - they won't. Lets face it - if you or I know the defensive capabilities of the Royal Navy's next generation air defence destroyers the Chinese certainly do.

Just a quick example of how such a system could be beaten - empty rocket tubes. Radar cannot tell the difference between a rocket with no warhead and a rocket with a warhead. Fire off a few hundred empty rockets (which are nice and cheap) in the general direction of the British fleet and they have to target and intercept all of them (which cannot be done) just in case they are armed.



Thats the point - they're not doing fine without them, they've already got them. They need replacements, or will do in the near future.

Yes hence why I also noted multiple missiles, but your also seem to be forgetting that both sides can think creatively and tactically here, we can keep our ships out of range of most of the enemy missiles, meaning the enemy can only launch there longest range missiles which should not overwhelm the defences and also send our jets ahead to take out any threats as need be, as well as many other ways around them.

At the end of the day its very much down to tactics of how the weapons are used more than just what the weapons are capable of. Hitler could have won the Battle for Britain for example if he stuck with the tactic of taking out the RAF and not switching over to night raids on major cities, even thou he had the inferior aircraft etc and also has lots of problems like range of his fighters etc to deal with at the same time.

[[R-DEV]Bob_Marley]

Originally Posted by [R-DEV]Rhino

I do agree its not as effective but because its not as effective it dose not mean there is 0% chance of success of it being used in a defensive manner than what your suggesting. I do agree its chances of success is much lower than that of Trident etc but it is better than nothing and it is much cheaper than developing an entirely new class of submarines, possibly a new set of nukes too, estimated at around $15bn, where these new carriers + aircraft come to 4.1bn which we have already spent pretty much, like it or not and to get the bombs which we could possibly buy 2nd hand off the Americans if we really wanted, which would add up to a considerably smaller price tag than that of a new Trident system.

And prepared for WW3 or w/e the world may throw at us...

It doesn't need to be a 0% chance, the chances are sufficiently low that a first strike attack would be viable against the UK.

Additionally, your proposed delivery system, the F-35B doesn't have the combat radius to strike Moscow. If the aircraft were launched from the Gulf of Finland.

With aircraft based in the UK the UK wouldn't even have the range to strike Warsaw! (I do not advocate making a nuclear strike on Warsaw or Moscow, they are simply being used as examples here) Let alone a rouge state in the middle or far east.

Originally Posted by [R-DEV]Rhino

and my "1/2 way suggestion" dose not archive the same thing and it would not cost that much more money, epically compared to the $15bn it would cost to replace Trident.

And you accuse me of not reading posts.

Significatly more expensive that scrapping the whole nuclear arsenal and acheving the same result of not having an effective nuclear deterrent. Infact, its worse than that, because not only is the UK left without a nuclear deterrent it is stuck with a nuclear arsenal that requires maintiance and looks absolutely hypocritical on the world stage demanding an end to nuclear weapons development in other states with no significant advantage to the UK.

You keep saying its better than nothing - its not, its significantly more expensive and less useful.

Originally Posted by [R-DEV]Rhino

You said 10,000km/h when according to the Wiki, its real speed is Mach 10, which is like I said, 3.4 km/h, which is not even faster than you suggested of 10,000 km/h even if you account for the proper trajectory which yes I missed off my calculations.

Well your source states the missile either travels at 12,000 km/h (in order to reach 3,000km in 15 minutes) or at Mach 10. Which is 11,000 km/h apparently.

Originally Posted by [R-DEV]Rhino

Yes hence why I also noted multiple missiles, but your also seem to be forgetting that both sides can think creatively and tactically here, we can keep our ships out of range of most of the enemy missiles, meaning the enemy can only launch there longest range missiles which should not overwhelm the defences and also send our jets ahead to take out any threats as need be, as well as many other ways around them.

Ah yes, just stay out of range. Of course. When the F-35B has a maximum combat radius of only 910km, of course.

Originally Posted by [R-DEV]Rhino

At the end of the day its very much down to tactics of how the weapons are used more than just what the weapons are capable of. Hitler could have won the Battle for Britain for example if he stuck with the tactic of taking out the RAF and not switching over to night raids on major cities, even thou he had the inferior aircraft etc and also has lots of problems like range of his fighters etc to deal with at the same time.

Godwin's Law (For the second time, I might add)

A term that originated on Usenet, Godwin's Law states that as an online argument grows longer and more heated, it becomes increasingly likely that somebody will bring up Adolf Hitler or the Nazis. When such an event occurs, the person guilty of invoking Godwin's Law has effectively forfieted the argument.