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.

 

Son of Star Wars in the UK!!!

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 02:49 PM
link   
well i actaully think the 'son of star wars' project is a good thing for the UK,

if the americans want spend £billions$ on it and britain spending naff all on it and have it defending our country for FREE, then niceone


but i agree with what other people say, what britain needs when blair steps down (probably this year) someone to stand up to bush!!

put it this way, the iron lady wouldn't have let no nation push britain around!! - britain thoughout its history haven't been 2nd/or bitch to any country.

but why these last few years are we?



[edit on 25-3-2006 by st3ve_o]




posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 02:55 PM
link   
In response to the topic. makes no difference to the UK if some missiles where based in the Uk mainland, depending who was in control of the firing the the missiles.

Of course the Anti US and Anti weapons/nukes groups may make it hell to depoly them. If they had nuke warheads they would never be deployed here, but also it is my understanding in a Crisis that all T45 destroyers would be given the role of anti missile defense, even those in port can fire while docked. any missiles would surely pass close or over portsmouth naval base on its way to europe, from any rouge country in the middle east, thats the only direction a missile would come from. North korea wouldnt waste a missile on the uk, it would rather hit California with everythink it had.

Now in response to the off topic post about defending The usa from the russkies, lol

We had 3 jobs, in a war with russia.

1) to hold them for 15~30days no matter what. this was based on the usa be able to airlift and sea lift 10 divisions into mainland europe or the uk if the europe line had failed.
every person ive ever spoken to says the us would of landed in the Uk, i guess pointing to fact that the combined might of the euros, uk,canada,us army based in europe couldnt of held the russikes back. the english channel was a natural barrier and thus a natural pause and desperately needed time.

2) To stop subs from passing thru the uk-iceland-greenland gap(on there way to kill the us sea transports) and kill any russian missile boats we were tailing.

3) to defend the airspace from iceland to norway to the baltic from russian bombers from attacking the us sea transports, and defend all mainland uk.

Now this next imformation i had passed to me by someone who died just last year who had been a sub skipper.

In the event that the russians managed to get thru and attack the us sea transports and the airlift transport planes, and all of europe was lost. and the Uk was about to be over run.

All uk nuclear weapons( tactical ) were to be used on the front line russian troops. there by destroying russias chance at taking england.(some form of warning would be given to russia first)
It was assumed that russia would respond in kind against all british airbases and miltary bases. when this happened. all uk strategic forces were to target russian army units (again some form of warning would be given to russian first)
It was estimated that this attack alone would destroy nearly 80% of all russian forces in europe, the whole purpose of this was to take away russias ability to invade and occupy europe and the uk. thus making the war pointless.
The uk was aware that the russians would evaporate the uk for doing this. but its also accepted it as the only option other that surrender.

The UK/USA equally assumed that the russians would step back at this point. and no direct nuclear exchange would take place between the USA and Russia.

What was left of the UK would be run from Australia or Canada



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 03:51 PM
link   
Thats pretty scary stuff yeehaa.

What would the US have been doing while we were being destroyed? would they have nuked russia or would they have stood back and watched.

Justin



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 03:58 PM
link   

but also it is my understanding in a Crisis that all T45 destroyers would be given the role of anti missile defense, even those in port can fire while docked. any missiles would surely pass close or over portsmouth naval base on its way to europe, from any rouge country in the middle east, thats the only direction a missile would come from.


Umm... even if a fully equipped Type 45 with Aster 30’s wanted to fire at an incoming ICBM it couldn't. It would be something to the kin of trying to shoot down an RPG with a bow and arrow. They are not designed for that role.

[edit on 25-3-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 04:03 PM
link   

What would the US have been doing while we were being destroyed? would they have nuked russia or would they have stood back and watched.


We would have been watching hoping you would destroy their forces in Europe therefore stopping their main campaign. The US probably would not have nuked Russia unless they nuked us first, if we attacked them first then they would hit the CONUS.

Note: Above is hypothetical and my opinion.



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 04:51 PM
link   
I wish people would spell rogue properly.

Seen it all over this site whenever anyone mentions Korea/Iran etc as a "rouge nation".... Does that mean that the're a sort of reddish colour?

It's ROGUE people!!!

Anyway, as for the ABM being based here, good thing if you ask me, means we get protected and probably get paid for the privelage too!



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 05:14 PM
link   
I personally think the british are more than trust worthy, honorable, and culurally similar people. We should and most likely will give the JSF source codes (im sure some british hacker could find a way to get them anyway) perosonally I think our ally britain is an important one and americans respect the UK, Think about it! Tony blair sacrificed his political career in britain for the sake of bush! what does this tell you about the kind of people the british are?

it tells me that they are one hell of a group of people who have had the US's backs alot, its time we get theres and give them the JSF codes and any other hardware they want.

Id rather see britain with it than france! (no offense)



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 05:18 PM
link   
how far away is this anyway??,

its been in talks since the cold war (last i heard all tests have been failers)!!


but yeah i'm not 100% sure what the 'son of star wars' is,

i mean ive heard about it, i know its a missile defence system which prevents nuclear strikes from small countrys, but how would it come up against a nuclear attack from a country the likes of russia?

is it a nuclear weapon itself? - if it is, its kinda scary because what happens if the system malfunctions and fires a missile against your own land


[edit on 25-3-2006 by st3ve_o]



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 05:22 PM
link   
The US has had some succesful interceptions at pearl harbor using this stuff, it isnt quite there but it is coming along nicely, hopefully we can have something deployable in 10 years.



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 05:35 PM
link   
If you guys check your history about the UK's tactical role during the cold war. It was plain and simply a first strike weapon against the russians alot of american nukes based here then and they would have been used the decision made in washington not here. As now the UKs LOL independent nuclear arsenal has to be checked in and out by americans. The Uk and the USA are tied militarily since the changing (or handing over) of power during the second world war.

If the US wants to base its missiles here they will end of story. Why we dont go the whole hog and become the (is it) 51st state i don't know.



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 05:38 PM
link   

If the US wants to base its missiles here they will end of story. Why we dont go the whole hog and become the (is it) 51st state i don't know.


Buddy, you better get in your bunker for I smell trouble ahead.



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 05:48 PM
link   
50 % hate america the other half luv it. As for me we are cousins after all it was the british tax payer that started up the US way back when. So if your gonna start something you might as well see it through to the end. Oh say can you see......................... ;-)

[edit on 25-3-2006 by Munro_DreadGod]



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23

but also it is my understanding in a Crisis that all T45 destroyers would be given the role of anti missile defense, even those in port can fire while docked. any missiles would surely pass close or over portsmouth naval base on its way to europe, from any rouge country in the middle east, thats the only direction a missile would come from.


Umm... even if a fully equipped Type 45 with Aster 30’s wanted to fire at an incoming ICBM it couldn't. It would be something to the kin of trying to shoot down an RPG with a bow and arrow. They are not designed for that role.

[edit on 25-3-2006 by WestPoint23]


In response the Son of star wars isnt designed to kill a ICBm either not a full blown us/uk/russia spec one. more a IRBM mith extended range. exactly the same thing the Asters can counter(pushing it too the extreme and fingers crossed intercept granted. The Son of star war just alot more single roled and specialised for the mission. [please correct me if im wrong]

But if someone fired a single missile at you, u would let off ballons if you thought it might help .lol



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 09:08 PM
link   
A ship launched Aster 30 will not be able to hit an incoming warhead. The active homing head has to be made more powerful and sensitive, its computing power and algorithms would have to increase, the proximity fuse will have to be changed to accommodate for hitting an incoming warhead. The radar band that is currently used would also have to change to allow for the tracking and acquisition of an incoming warhead. So in short there is no need to cross the fingers because currently the missile is just not designed for that role.

Your best bet would be the Aster 30 SAMP/T. Even though this missile has only be tested against low flying attack aircraft and subsonic anti ship missiles it claim to be able to engage tactical ballistic missiles with a range of less then 1000 km. So if you want to hang you hopes on an untested missile that can only engage regional missiles then the Aster 30 SAMP/T is for you.



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by XphilesPhan
The US has had some succesful interceptions at pearl harbor using this stuff, it isnt quite there but it is coming along nicely, hopefully we can have something deployable in 10 years.


IIRC the first few ABMs are already deployed in Alaska.



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 04:26 AM
link   
The Uk was always going to be involved in the ABM system anyway as it relies on the Radar systems at Fylingdales to track any appoaching missiles.

As for the T45's, they do not currently have any ABM capability. However MBDA are working on an upgraded aster (the mythical Aster 45) that will have that capability. It is anticipated that if needed these could be fitted to RN warships at a future upgrade.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join