Keeping a British nuclear Triad

[lordroel]

So how would a British nuclear Triad look like if it was in the present and how do we keep it.

[simon darkshade]

Land based Missiles are a tad too vulnerable.

[lordroel]

Sept 26, 2021 8:33:16 GMT simon darkshade said:

Land based Missiles are a tad too vulnerable.

True so it could be a RAF/RN thing then.

[simon darkshade]

RAF bomber based weapons don’t take too many hoops and there is the capacity for Army missiles a la Pluton.

Thor showed there was no fundamental issue stopping missiles being placed on land, but silo based missiles like the French S3 would require a different force posture and strategy.

[lordroel]

Sept 26, 2021 8:59:11 GMT simon darkshade said:

RAF bomber based weapons don’t take too many hoops and there is the capacity for Army missiles a la Pluton.

Thor showed there was no fundamental issue stopping missiles being placed on land, but silo based missiles like the French S3 would require a different force posture and strategy.

And unlike sub based missiles silo based missiles cannot move location, so they are a east target i asume.

[James G]

A Pershing/GLCM force on land, entirely mobile just as the Americans did it, is entirely possible.
It is all about politics though as to how long that could be viable.

[lordroel]

Sept 26, 2021 9:11:10 GMT James G said:

A Pershing/GLCM force on land, entirely mobile just as the Americans did it, is entirely possible.
It is all about politics though as to how long that could be viable.

A longer and maybe more hotter Cold War could be a reason, ore that i am thinking.

[stevep]

   Personally I wouldn't go for a triad as I doubt especially in the present day, that an air elements is practical for Britain. Very expensive and we lack the space to deploy forces that wouldn't be highly vulnerable to sudden strikes, nuclear or conventional against it.  True you can have enough units in rotation so that some are continually in the air but that's very, very expensive as you need a lot more forces not to mention the wear and tear on men and equipment.

  The core would have to be a force of SSBNs, preferably at least 5 as that gives some redundancy.  [One of the old James Bond films has the capture of a British and Soviet sub which are tricked into destroying each other rather than triggering a full scale nuclear war.  Rather extreme but any loss of a single sub while you only have 4 makes it difficult if not impossible to always have one at sea, which is what you want for a true deterrent.]

  Would back that up with a small force of ICBMs in silos.  Yes their vulnerable to attack with modern weapons but if someone is attacking them with nukes, especially given the small size of Britain its already pretty much an all out exchange for Britain.  What it would give would be an option for a warning shot in a period of great tension without exposing the location, and hence making it a lot more vulnerable of whatever boomer is at sea.  As an aside this also gives some experience of rocketry which might be very useful for conventional missiles and also commercial space operations.

[La Rouge Beret]

I concur with maintaining a SSBN capability supplemented by missile silos and in my dream world I'd love to see the UK maintain a stand off missile capability from strategic bombers. Apparently, an evolved Victor provided one of the best opportunities for this to occur, due to the design.

[stevep]

Sept 27, 2021 5:39:20 GMT La Rouge Beret said:

I concur with maintaining a SSBN capability supplemented by missile silos and in my dream world I'd love to see the UK maintain a stand off missile capability from strategic bombers. Apparently, an evolved Victor provided one of the best opportunities for this to occur, due to the design.

  La Rouge Beret,

  Are you thinking of a strategic force or nukes for tactical use?  The former, especially if as part of a deterrent force would be a lot more expensive, especially since it would have to be on a high level of activity.  The latter, that might be used in war-fighting, albeit that there's a danger of escalation to full scale exchanges but would be a lot more affordable.

  However I think even a nuclear 'Biard' as I suggested would need both more political commitment for such a capacity and also a more successful - possibly significantly so - economy.

  Steve

[belushitd]

To do a Triad properly, one requires SSBNs, bombers and the weapons to drop, and finally, something land based.

If we posit a MUCH closer commonwealth, the Brits could stash their ICBMs in Australia or possibly Canada, and keep their bombers in Canadian bases, to eliminate the possibility of a short warning attack destroying the force.

To pay for such a thing, I believe would require a much firmer reliance on either the US or the French to split the cost of weapons, delivery systems and procurement costs. As the Brits already share costs with the US for the missiles for the SSBNs, I can see a cost sharing thing for the B-1, possibly.

Belushi TD

[La Rouge Beret]

Sept 27, 2021 15:25:40 GMT stevep said:

Sept 27, 2021 5:39:20 GMT La Rouge Beret said:

I concur with maintaining a SSBN capability supplemented by missile silos and in my dream world I'd love to see the UK maintain a stand off missile capability from strategic bombers. Apparently, an evolved Victor provided one of the best opportunities for this to occur, due to the design.

  La Rouge Beret,

  Are you thinking of a strategic force or nukes for tactical use?  The former, especially if as part of a deterrent force would be a lot more expensive, especially since it would have to be on a high level of activity.  The latter, that might be used in war-fighting, albeit that there's a danger of escalation to full scale exchanges but would be a lot more affordable.

  However I think even a nuclear 'Biard' as I suggested would need both more political commitment for such a capacity and also a more successful - possibly significantly so - economy.

  Steve

Yeah I was thinking of a tactical role for the RAF V bomber fleet comparable to the ever green USAF B 52. Otherwise, I always thought the B 1 Lancer would look good wearing RAF roundels.

[stevep]

Sept 27, 2021 21:26:13 GMT belushitd said:

To do a Triad properly, one requires SSBNs, bombers and the weapons to drop, and finally, something land based.

If we posit a MUCH closer commonwealth, the Brits could stash their ICBMs in Australia or possibly Canada, and keep their bombers in Canadian bases, to eliminate the possibility of a short warning attack destroying the force.

To pay for such a thing, I believe would require a much firmer reliance on either the US or the French to split the cost of weapons, delivery systems and procurement costs. As the Brits already share costs with the US for the missiles for the SSBNs, I can see a cost sharing thing for the B-1, possibly.

Belushi TD

  It would be a possibility if you got suitable agreements with both those dominions and also as far as Canada was concerned with the US.  Not sure how happy it would be about nuclear weapons not under its control being just across the border, despite the fact it would have its own weapons in Britain and Canada itself.

  Possibly a more successful WWII for Britain, especially say keeping Malaya and holding parts of the DEI and being the power, rather than the US or at least alongside them, helping defend Australia in New Guinea and other areas against Japan.

  I think with some different decisions there might be a strong enough British economy to support a triad, especially possibly if shared with other Commonwealth powers although I think that the bomber leg would be seen as redundant by ~1970/80.

[stevep]

Sept 28, 2021 10:48:26 GMT La Rouge Beret said:

Sept 27, 2021 15:25:40 GMT stevep said:

  La Rouge Beret ,

  Are you thinking of a strategic force or nukes for tactical use?  The former, especially if as part of a deterrent force would be a lot more expensive, especially since it would have to be on a high level of activity.  The latter, that might be used in war-fighting, albeit that there's a danger of escalation to full scale exchanges but would be a lot more affordable.

  However I think even a nuclear 'Biard' as I suggested would need both more political commitment for such a capacity and also a more successful - possibly significantly so - economy.

  Steve

Yeah I was thinking of a tactical role for the RAF V bomber fleet comparable to the ever green USAF B 52. Otherwise, I always thought the B 1 Lancer would look good wearing RAF roundels.

  OK thanks for clarifying.  Definitely think with stand off weapons they could still have a part to play in the tactical role.

[1bigrich]

I always thought if the British wanted to go for a land-based deterrent, they should get creative with it. Say a several silos in the Orkneys, several in the Shetlands. a couple on Ascension, and say a larger complex in the Falklands. Maybe a couple silos on Diego Garcia.

Getting on board with the USAF and the Air Launched Cruise Missile could keep the V bombers viable without having to penetrate Soviet airspace. And of course the submarines as historic, maybe just more of them for 2-5 boats on patrol at all times.

When the Soviets were sabre-rattling, wasn't it Margaret Thatcher that said, "Britain will burn from North to South. But we will not burn alone..."

My thoughts,