Britain could possibly reduce Nuclear Fleet

well what are you talking about? because you've totally lost me.

edit:- sorry man i apologise, i re-read what you put and didn't realise you was telling fritz your point - i thought you was amplifying britain only as 1 kilioton nukes

[edit on 7-12-2006 by st3ve_o]

Look people, it is so simple. But I'll explain it in a way that even a 5 year old can understand:

1. Nuclear weapons - be they free fall bombs, artillery shells, free flight rockets, cruise missiles or inter-continental-ballistic-missiles, are a necessary evil and we as a world super power have a nuclear deterrent that needs upgrading as the carrier system is reaching it's 'use by date'.

2. The proposed replacement system is 3 Trident capable nuclear powered submarines. (Originally would have been 4, but Blair has had to do something to appease CND!)

3. The cost of this proposed upgrade to the carrier system, is 25 Billion English Pounds. This is a very conservative and a baseline estimate and is therefore grossly underestimated!

4. The Trident missiles that will arm these new submarines will themselves, need upgrading or replacing in 15-20 years. The actual cost per missile - per silo - depending on number of warheads or MIRVs is not yet known.

5. The power or yield of a nuclear detonation is measured as being 'equal to [=] more than [>] or less than [

Originally posted by fritz
Look people, it is so simple. But I'll explain it in a way that even a 5 year old can understand:

1. Nuclear weapons - be they free fall bombs, artillery shells, free flight rockets, cruise missiles or inter-continental-ballistic-missiles, are a necessary evil and we as a world super power have a nuclear deterrent that needs upgrading as the carrier system is reaching it's 'use by date'.

2. The proposed replacement system is 3 Trident capable nuclear powered submarines. (Originally would have been 4, but Blair has had to do something to appease CND!)

3. The cost of this proposed upgrade to the carrier system, is 25 Billion English Pounds. This is a very conservative and a baseline estimate and is therefore grossly underestimated!

4. The Trident missiles that will arm these new submarines will themselves, need upgrading or replacing in 15-20 years. The actual cost per missile - per silo - depending on number of warheads or MIRVs is not yet known.

5. The power or yield of a nuclear detonation is measured as being 'equal to [=] more than [>] or less than [

i agree, we must be prepared for anything and everything.

at the moment middle-east dominates the news, 20 years ago it was the cold war, what will it be 20 years in the future (china, russia again)?

we must be prepared for 'all' scenarios, you get no 2nd chances when it comes to WMD.

DW, if I remember correctly, you are an 18 or 19 year old student, studying to become a merchant seaman.

For one so young, you show a remarkable grasp of our current dilemma. But my friend, I have spent over 30 years teaching NBC both to airmen and soldiers alike, and I know the subject matter inside out and probably better than most.

By NBC, I mean Nuclear, Biological and Chemical warfare, which is exactly the same as Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear warfare apart from the fact that someone, somewhere, decided that Nuclear and Radiological were not one and the same thing. when in fact, a Nuclear device will produce Radiological effects when detonated!

The premis that we need large and expensively maintained nuclear missiles, is a myth born out of the American missile programme Mrs Thatcher signed up to in the early 80's.

Now, as the carrier of these missiles nears the end of it's operational life, Great Britain should design, should build and should maintain it's own independent nuclear deterrent AGAIN! IMO, we should not rely on the USA as we are at present, for both the missiles and the servicing of the submarines that carry them.
[I also note that none of the recent contributors have replied to my post about the Devonport fiasco but that again, that is to be expected]

Smaller yield weapons for less cost simply means more of them. I have been studying this for several years and have also thought about this fact for our navy.

Great that we are getting 2 small carriers, but what about the aircraft to fly off them? Where do they come from? Why have we not adopted a 'Fleet Air Arm' version of the Eurofighter Typhoon? A couple of big arrester hooks, reinforced undercarriage and larger airbrakes would do the trick.

The new destroyers that are coming off the slipways are really advanced and God knows, the Navy needs them.

But we are an Island nation are we not. Whilst it is brill that we will eventually get new destroyers, frigates and carriers, we should also be building smaller, faster gun and missile armed in-shore fast attack/patrol craft.

We should also build some decent logistic carriers and not have to rely on Ro/Ro ferries or converted cruise liners.

Sorry but I've lost the plot now...................................... . Am getting really hett up about this, so I'm going to close.

Originally posted by fritz
DW, if I remember correctly, you are an 18 or 19 year old student, studying to become a merchant seaman.

For one so young, you show a remarkable grasp of our current dilemma. But my friend, I have spent over 30 years teaching NBC both to airmen and soldiers alike, and I know the subject matter inside out and probably better than most.

With respect fritz a young mind is usually appreciated because they ask questions and give a "fresh" outlook on a problem, just my two pence.
I've grown up in a military enviroment and worked with many defence personel they have given me quite a bit of information.

By NBC, I mean Nuclear, Biological and Chemical warfare, which is exactly the same as Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear warfare apart from the fact that someone, somewhere, decided that Nuclear and Radiological were not one and the same thing.

when in fact, a Nuclear device will produce Radiological effects when detonated!

Well fritz you must remember that these are the same people who decided that we didnt need "carriers" in the 1980's.

The premis that we need large and expensively maintained nuclear missiles, is a myth born out of the American missile programme Mrs Thatcher signed up to in the early 80's.

No offence but I'd rather have a sword than a knife, just my opinion you may not share it but frankly using a 1 kiloton nuke is not a strategic weapon, it is merely a tactical one.

Now, as the carrier of these missiles nears the end of it's operational life, Great Britain should design, should build and should maintain it's own independent nuclear deterrent AGAIN! IMO, we should not rely on the USA as we are at present, for both the missiles and the servicing of the submarines that carry them.
[I also note that none of the recent contributors have replied to my post about the Devonport fiasco but that again, that is to be expected]

Fritz, to be fair the idea of creating a new launch vehicle, missile and warhead are rather....crazy. Our military cannot afford weapons, armour and even camoflauge jackets for our troops never mind foot the cost for a completely new nuclear deterrant.

Smaller yield weapons for less cost simply means more of them. I have been studying this for several years and have also thought about this fact for our navy.

Yes but do they provide a big strategic threat? No not really, a 1 kiloton nuclear warhead wont scare a dictator as much as a 1 megaton nuclear warhead.

Great that we are getting 2 small carriers, but what about the aircraft to fly off them? Where do they come from? Why have we not adopted a 'Fleet Air Arm' version of the Eurofighter Typhoon? A couple of big arrester hooks, reinforced undercarriage and larger airbrakes would do the trick.

For the EF? That would require a complete rework of the aircraft not to mention the flight deck.
You realise that the FAA has its own flight aircraft (the harrier) and is getting the F-35 B right?

The new destroyers that are coming off the slipways are really advanced and God knows, the Navy needs them.

yes but frankly not enough of them, we're only getting 9 (ish)

But we are an Island nation are we not. Whilst it is brill that we will eventually get new destroyers, frigates and carriers, we should also be building smaller, faster gun and missile armed in-shore fast attack/patrol craft.

Lol mate patrol boats wont be boat by the government , why? We have no tactical or strategic need for a fast attack boat. We have no enemies nearby to cause a danger besides, we have the RN flying aircover and the marine mine sweeper squadrons to watch over the coasts.

We should also build some decent logistic carriers and not have to rely on Ro/Ro ferries or converted cruise liners.

We just built 4. 1 is in service, but frankly a RO RO is exactly what we require , beleive me I'm training to man them!
A RO RO encompasses all the facilties the navy needs to transport tanks and gear, why? Quick and easy to disembark and to load. Can be in and out of a port within 24 hours. Cruise liners? Well until you can show me a government willing to spend over several million on designing a new ship and building it purely for troop transport cruise liners will have to do.

DW, I hope the training is going well.

Regarding RO/RO well, yes, I agree. But the MOD spends millions of £'s hiring or renting them from private companies.

It would be better to build half a dozen or so, and rent them out, thus we could make money from civvies, then use them in times of need.

I myself favour the hovercraft RO/RO system as they could drop the men and equipment where it was needed most, instead of landing in harbours.

As to our not having any need of FSB's - have you already forgotten the French? How could you forget them - our natural enemies?

Originally posted by fritz
DW, I hope the training is going well.

Regarding RO/RO well, yes, I agree. But the MOD spends millions of £'s hiring or renting them from private companies.

It would be better to build half a dozen or so, and rent them out, thus we could make money from civvies, then use them in times of need.

Yeah but whos going to repair, supply and operate the said RO RO's for years until needed?
Sure as hell not the RFA or the RN, neither have the man power or the money to.

I myself favour the hovercraft RO/RO system as they could drop the men and equipment where it was needed most, instead of landing in harbours.

Thats the thing though, for that you need a specialised unloading section and that requires a new ship, more money, more training , etc ,etc.

As to our not having any need of FSB's - have you already forgotten the French? How could you forget them - our natural enemies?

Now fritz, we both know the french are no danger, they know we can take over france in less than 7 hours (the time taken ish to get from london to paris in a challanger2 )

Originally posted by fritz
DW, I hope the training is going well.

Regarding RO/RO well, yes, I agree. But the MOD spends millions of £'s hiring or renting them from private companies.

It would be better to build half a dozen or so, and rent them out, thus we could make money from civvies, then use them in times of need.

I myself favour the hovercraft RO/RO system as they could drop the men and equipment where it was needed most, instead of landing in harbours.

As to our not having any need of FSB's - have you already forgotten the French? How could you forget them - our natural enemies?

RO/RO's have an extremely shallow berth, I believe. That is part of the design specs as they are liable to be called up whenever the Government want them. As a result, they can beach in as little as 6 inches, I believe.

What you may also find interesting is that the MoD does operate RO/RO ferries and leases them commercially when they are not required in Defence of the Realm.

A recent PFI in 2001 has placed on order 6 RO/RO ships, each with a capacity of up to 10,000 tonnes, including 130 armoured vehicles or 60 trucks. They are to be commercially leased when not required.

I believe also, that recently, we had ships from Stena Sealink being operated by RFA personel. The last of these was handed back to Stena in 2001.

RFA personel are trained and will man any RO/RO ships that the MoD procures.

NO DW, NO!

Have you so readily forgotten the nuclear threat posed by the French independent nuclear arsenal?

Do you not realise that both the Mirage 5000 and Rafale are fighter-bombers and can carry the French nuclear weapons?

Have you no other plan than to send a Challenger II to Paris - whilst they are on their way to obliterate London? And you propose doing this is 7 hours?

You Sir, are a poor deluded young fool.

To add. The two RO/RO we had up until 2002 were:

Sea Chieftain and Sea Crusader. They were leased from Stena in 1998 and handed back in 2002/2003. They are still available when required.

I can't find much info on the 6 we ordered in 2001. 2 were supposed to built in Belfast and 4 in Germany.

EDIT: It turns out we now have 4, not 6. These are available when required from AWSR Ltd. When not being used by the RFA, they are commcercially available.

EDIT again: So in summary, we have 6 RO-RO's available when we need them. 2 from Stena and 4 from AWSR Ltd. These were funded by a PFI, apparently...

[edit on 10/12/06 by stumason]

[edit on 10/12/06 by stumason]

Well that's alright then Stu M.

As long as we are supporting the German economy and provide them with jobs, we can sleep peacefully in our beds.

I just happen to like air cushion vehicles and the Russians are the best in the business. The Zubr air-cushion landing craft is a classic and I want one!

It is a sad fact that our ship-building capacity has depleted somewhat.

What shipyards we have are already taken up with contracts.

For something as simple as some ferries, I would rather offshore the work and have our own Yards produce the Type-45's, Astute's, the FCV's and what not, rather than be taken up building these things and have the Warship's offshored.

Seems sensible to me.

I have just found out from reading some Parliamentary papers that the building of the 4 RO/RO's was divided between Belfast and Germany.

Originally posted by fritz
NO DW, NO!

Have you so readily forgotten the nuclear threat posed by the French independent nuclear arsenal?

Do you not realise that both the Mirage 5000 and Rafale are fighter-bombers and can carry the French nuclear weapons?

Have you no other plan than to send a Challenger II to Paris - whilst they are on their way to obliterate London? And you propose doing this is 7 hours?

You Sir, are a poor deluded young fool.

Well MY country is safe, I dont know any fighter that can fly over a 1000 miles without refueling, besides we have the entire of england to act as a buffer
Why do you think the nukes are up in scotland

Originally posted by devilwasp

Why do you think the nukes are up in scotland

We store OUR nukes in Scotland so that if there's an accident the damage affects nowhere/no-one important

Originally posted by Strangerous

Originally posted by devilwasp

Why do you think the nukes are up in scotland

We store OUR nukes in Scotland so that if there's an accident the damage affects nowhere/no-one important

Thats what I was thinking!

But we MAKE them in England, near to where I live. Seems the Jocks don't have the required..."skill sets"....

Originally posted by devilwasp

Well MY country is safe, I dont know any fighter that can fly over a 1000 miles without refueling, besides we have the entire of england to act as a buffer

Why do you think the nukes are up in scotland

Also, DW, do you live in the Outer Hebrides or something? Glasgow is less than 700 miles from Paris. (698 to be exact)

The Rafale can do that, you know (not to mention they have a carrier variant anyway )

EDIT: i got the distances wrong, Paris is even closer!!

[edit on 10/12/06 by stumason]

Originally posted by stumason
Also, DW, do you live in the Outer Hebrides or something? Glasgow is less than 700 miles from Paris. (698 to be exact)

The Rafale can do that, you know

(not to mention they have a carrier variant anyway

)

EDIT: i got the distances wrong, Paris is even closer!!

[edit on 10/12/06 by stumason]

Well guess I got them wrong but heh, personally I live in newcastle, edinburgh and well on a floating city. Still I'd like to see a rafale dare to fly close to glasgow.

Now come on stu, do you really think that the RAF is going to let a french made flying bucket of bolts into UK airspace?

Originally posted by devilwasp

Well guess I got them wrong but heh, personally I live in newcastle, edinburgh and well on a floating city. Still I'd like to see a rafale dare to fly close to glasgow.

I'd like to see any Frenchmen go near Glasgow! Even us English try to avoid that if we can...

Originally posted by devilwasp
Now come on stu, do you really think that the RAF is going to let a french made flying bucket of bolts into UK airspace?

Ooooh, DW..tempting a flaming there.. hehe... The Rafale isn't that bad! I would imagine it would be shot down in a second...

But..

If you Scots insist on being independant, then you'll be on your own. Personally, I think whichever way they should be allowed to bomb Glasgow. It might help the area The RAF should join in!