It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

the UK and nuke bombs

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:
RAB

posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 03:20 AM
link   
From what I remeber the RAF got rid of it's last WE-177 nuke in 1997, just wondering if need be can the Tornado GR4 carry US air-dropped nuke i.e. the B62, B83 etc etc?




posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 03:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by RAB
From what I remeber the RAF got rid of it's last WE-177 nuke in 1997, just wondering if need be can the Tornado GR4 carry US air-dropped nuke i.e. the B62, B83 etc etc?


The answer is probably yes, the Tornado is designed to carry most NATO compatable ordinance, of which those probably are.



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 05:12 AM
link   
I would say no as the special wiring looms were removed to reduce weight and to make way for more conventional wiring looms on the GR4 and all the "kit" reqd to arm/drop the "buckets of instant sunshine" might of been removed years ago!

However what warhead can the Stormshadow carry?

SV out!


RAB

posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 06:00 AM
link   
it uses the :
BROACH perforating and explosive charget

although I dare say others may be usable



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 06:24 AM
link   
i think we should get our nukes back who will protect us if america falls to another country in the event of a war!
this country once had a big empire look how things have changed



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 08:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by klain
i think we should get our nukes back who will protect us if america falls to another country in the event of a war!
this country once had a big empire look how things have changed


get our nukes back? did tony go and scrap our trident missile system whilst we were'nt looking?



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 08:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by mpcsmith7

Originally posted by klain
i think we should get our nukes back who will protect us if america falls to another country in the event of a war!
this country once had a big empire look how things have changed


get our nukes back? did tony go and scrap our trident missile system whilst we were'nt looking?


I think they're due to go in 2010, so the question is, will Blair replace them? I don't know which way he'll jump but he will face massive pressure from his party to get rid. I personally think we need to replace given the worlds current situation. Unfortunately Labour do tend to let high ideals cloud their judgement when practical considerations should take precedence



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 08:27 AM
link   
sorry bit noobish of me but heh i stand by my point



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 08:28 AM
link   
According to an article in the Scotsman:

Secret plans for Trident replacement

TIM RIPLEY


Key points
• Royal Navy prepares multi-purpose nuclear submarine to replace Trident
• Claims announcement delayed to avoid upsetting Labour voters
• Reports UK preparing to design new atomic warhead at Aldermaston

Key quote
"By making the submarine more versatile, we get more value for our money and don’t have billions of pounds of capital investment tied up in a submarines that can never be used for anything except blowing up the world" - MoD source

Story in full ROYAL Navy experts are preparing secret designs for a new generation of multi-purpose nuclear submarines to replace Britain’s Trident fleet at the end of the next decade.

The Scotsman has learned that work on a replacement for the Royal Navy’s nuclear deterrent is further advanced than had previously been known - despite claims by the government that no decision has been made on a successor for the four Faslane-based Trident submarines.

The aim of the plan is to give ministers the chance to accelerate work on the Trident’s successor immediately after the next election, to allow a replacement for the existing fleet of ballistic-missile-firing submarines to be entered into service around 2020.

About 3,000 sailors and 4,000 civilian workers employed at the Trident’s bases - Faslane and Coulport, on the Clyde - are anxiously awaiting developments.

Naval sources suggest Tony Blair has all but made up his mind to replace the £9billion Trident system to ensure Britain retains its "seat at the top table of nuclear powers".

The government commissioned an opinion poll on a replacement for Trident last year, and just over half the respondents gave it their support, reinforcing views in Downing Street that it should move ahead on the project once the next election is out of the way.

Full Article


zero lift



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 08:54 AM
link   
interesting stuff! good article. interesting to read up on the vanguard class replacement and also the new astute class sub. its worth going through the link in the scotsman article to the Defence Procurement Agency website. take a look at the Integrated Project Teams part for some snippets of info on up and coming MOD developments.



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by RAB
From what I remeber the RAF got rid of it's last WE-177 nuke in 1997, just wondering if need be can the Tornado GR4 carry US air-dropped nuke i.e. the B62, B83 etc etc?


Any aircraft with a standard NATO bomb mount can carry the B61. So yes, I would imagine most british planes (from the harrier to the tornado) could deliver them if needed.



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 11:08 AM
link   
The navy has been looking at it's whole underwater strategy recently. The have been a number of concept design studies into future submarine designs and most are startling to behold!!!! I recently saw one for a nuclear sub with only a crew of 54 and a whole hanger full of UUV's.



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 11:43 AM
link   
Why would anyone imagine the UK's Trident fleet will only be in service until 2010 (or even 2020 for that matter)?

Given that the UK operates the D5 version of Trident (and God knows what up-grades etc) and these were only commissioned into service between 1993 and nov 1999.

www.naval-technology.com...

I have no doubt all sorts of studies will go on (with increasing publicity and apparant 'urgency') over time but in view of the environment in which this is all happening I also have little doubt that Trident will last the 30+yrs it was originally thoiught it would last, if not a little longer.

The military will make their usual claims that a replacement is instantly needed and the gov will take a more measured view, thankfully.

Many in the UK are far from convinced of the value of nuclear weapons (especially now).

......and if we in the UK have to have the damnable things I can see no reason why we don't just go the whole hog and have our own fully independant (not US sourced, maintained or satellite guided) weapons system like the French do.



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
Why would anyone imagine the UK's Trident fleet will only be in service until 2010 (or even 2020 for that matter)?



The numbers are about right, when designed they were projected a life of about 30 years (same as Repulse etc). That would see them being decommisioned from about 2023 to 2030. The design process for the replacements has to be started soon (or as suggested, has already started) because the entire process will take about 15 years from inital specification through to entry into service. This length of lead in time is similar to most other naval vessels such as the type 23's, 45's and carriers

[edit on 22-2-2005 by paperplane_uk]



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey


......and if we in the UK have to have the damnable things I can see no reason why we don't just go the whole hog and have our own fully independant (not US sourced, maintained or satellite guided) weapons system like the French do.


By using US Trident missiles you save money and get a far better product than an indiginous product could provide. It just makes good sense. For the same reasons the US purchased UK designed harriers rather than deveolping their own replacement.

It's not like the US somehow has control over the system simply because they designed and produced it.



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Starwars51
It's not like the US somehow has control over the system simply because they designed and produced it.


- Well that is true in itself regarding production and design but this is about much more than that.

The fact remains that the US services and maintains the UK's missiles and is responsible for satellite navigation the UK must access if it is to use them.

In effect the UK's national deterrent is utterly dependant on the US providing it's means to function and it therefore is in no way 'fully independant'.......so who cares if it "saves money" or is (supposedly) a "better product".

Clearly our Reagan besotted Mrs Thatch did but placing the UK's deterent entirely at the mercy of the prevailing US 'mood' is hardly what it is supposed to be about, right?

My view would therefore be that as the UK is spending a huge fortune on something that is not actually what it is claimed to be and that if we have to have those things then we really ought to be getting something that lives up to it's claims.

We had a fully independant deterrent before (we even improved upon the Polaris system entirely alone so it is hardly beyond us.......especially in view of the context within which they will - never - be used!
) and there is no reason why we should not have one now.

[edit on 22-2-2005 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey

My view would therefore be that as the UK is spending a huge fortune on something that is not actually what it is claimed to be and that if we have to have those things then we really ought to be getting something that lives up to it's claims.

[edit on 22-2-2005 by sminkeypinkey]


You mean the Labour government? (yeah yeah flame on)



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join