oscssw
Senior chief petty officer
Posts: 967
Likes: 1,575
|
Post by oscssw on Nov 20, 2021 15:20:36 GMT
The Vodopad threat comes directly from Stuart Slade, who discussed it and described its quasi-ballistic nature as extremely destabilising; a version can deliver a nuclear warhead of reasonable size (I'm remembering 200kt here quite strongly) at a high speed from a short range that makes it very, very difficult to react to. I can't dig out the precise reference, as it was on the 'old' TBO board, not the current iteration, but he mentioned it at least twice. Well Simon I am more than happy to debate you but not the late, great and very much missed Stuart Slade.
So I guess we will have to agree to disagree. and that, my friend, is the best your going to get from me on this subject.  |
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Nov 20, 2021 15:32:06 GMT
That is more than fine. When the other board is back up, I'll be able to dig out the reference and expand upon it.
In any case, they aren't the only threat and cruise missiles present a tricky problem; by no means insoluble, but there are practical limits of space and cost as to how Britain would be able to counter them.
|
|
belushitd
Warrant Officer
Posts: 205
Likes: 258
|
Post by belushitd on Dec 4, 2021 6:16:35 GMT
Dammit... I go on vacation and then work 50+ hours in a week, don't have time to log on and I missed out on the best time to post the reply I just wrote. I'm going to post it anyway, because I have been sampling the single malt and I think I typed up something pretty good. This is in response to SteveP's post at the bottom of Page 2 of the thread.
I agree that we're discussing things at cross purposes.
My point is that you don't NEED a nuke to wreck either bombers or silos at an island base. You need a sub nearby with some kind of missile able to attack either silos or runways/hangers/aircraft on the ground. Conventional weapons would work just fine. The problem with the small island is the reaction time of the defenders.
I'm not talking about a "bolt from the blue" kind of attack, either. Consider a war scenario. You've sunk a large chunk of your deterrent dollars/pounds/whatever into a small island somewhere remote. You are at war with a peer adversary. Your men are trained well, and on their toes. How much warning do you need to flush the bombers? How much warning do you need to flush your silos? If a sub is close, and by close, I mean 50 miles off shore, you're going to get less than 3 minutes warning. Bombers WILL NOT make it into the air, with the very unlikely possibility of your Alert birds. The missiles in the silos? I don't think you'll get them off either. Yes, with solid fueled rockets, you can push a button and they launch with a very small delay (how small? I don't know, and I am not going to ask, as I like my fingers in their current configuration).
The problem is, a missile that is launched from 50 miles away will traverse that distance in, what, 3 minutes? Maybe 4? If you've got a ship parked over the sub doing the launching, your crew has to see the launch, recognize it as such, pull up the radio, connect with the other side, and send the launch warning. Total elapsed time? 30 to 90 seconds. The warning has to be received and retransmitted to the appropriate Command and Control, who have to make the decision to fire your nukes or not, and make that decision in time to send the launch orders to the island. Even if your bombers are sitting on the threshold of the runway with the engines running when the order comes in, there's another 30 to 90 seconds to start getting the planes off the ground.
Do the math. The people giving the orders have, AT MOST, 2 minutes to make the "Shall we play a game" decision. Every second they delay is one less second for the planes to take off or the silos to flush their missiles.
This is the reason why the UK did NOT go with silos for their nuclear deterrent. Forget the civilian population, the reason they did not go with silos is because in an all out nuclear war, they would loose their capacity to use the ICBMs before they were able to make the go/no go decision to use them. Any small landmass used as a base for nuclear weapons will NOT give you a weapon you will ever be able to use. Look at where the US, Russia and China have their silos. Middle of their continental landmass. Of course, since Russian and China share the same landmass, they ALWAYS have to have their guys on high alert to avoid a sneak attack. But the main point is that they keep the silos far away from deep water, as Simon pointed out.
The only scenario where building silos or bomber bases at Ascension or Diego Garcia makes sense is if you are planning a first strike.
Belushi TD
|
|
miletus12
Squadron vice admiral
To get yourself lost, just follow the signs.
Posts: 7,470 
Likes: 4,295
|
Post by miletus12 on Dec 4, 2021 7:31:41 GMT
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.
We could see a British triad as part of a multinational alliance system with British systems host countried on foreign soil, much as the Americans do and did with SEATO and NATO. |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,031 
Likes: 49,431
|
Post by lordroel on Dec 4, 2021 8:28:43 GMT
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.
We could see a British triad as part of a multinational alliance system with British systems host countried on foreign soil, much as the Americans do and did with SEATO and NATO. Why not add Canada to the list and call it CANUKAUS ore something like that. |
|
miletus12
Squadron vice admiral
To get yourself lost, just follow the signs.
Posts: 7,470
Likes: 4,295
|
Post by miletus12 on Dec 4, 2021 10:17:33 GMT
AUKUS.We could see a British triad as part of a multinational alliance system with British systems host countried on foreign soil, much as the Americans do and did with SEATO and NATO. Why not add Canada to the list and call it CANUKAUS ore something like that. There are serious geopolitical issues between Ottawa and Washington that have to be resolved. The Canadians may be staunch allies, but they do have grievances that makes such a "nuclear" alliance problematic. |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,031
Likes: 49,431
|
Post by lordroel on Dec 4, 2021 10:18:36 GMT
Why not add Canada to the list and call it CANUKAUS ore something like that. There are serious geopolitical issues between Ottawa and Washington that have to be resolved. The Canadians may be staunch allies, but they do have grievances that makes such a "nuclear" alliance problematic. So the United Kingdom and Australia only. |
|
miletus12
Squadron vice admiral
To get yourself lost, just follow the signs.
Posts: 7,470
Likes: 4,295
|
Post by miletus12 on Dec 4, 2021 10:55:12 GMT
There are serious geopolitical issues between Ottawa and Washington that have to be resolved. The Canadians may be staunch allies, but they do have grievances that makes such a "nuclear" alliance problematic. Uhm. The United Kingdom has political reasons that go back to the "ww ii special relationship" that make her an eager AUKUS member. She sees her continued access and relevance on the world stage as a "co-equal partner with the Americans". As for Australia, that history with her American ally is very WWII too and quite complicated. In its simplest form, to explain why Australia is in AUKUS, the British failed at Singapore in 1942 and later off Sri Lanka during history's first aircraft carrier battle they lost serious face and credibility with the Australians when the Royal Navy retired in defeat. Coral Sea was the turning point for Canberra as was the Kokoda Track as to who they thought was "reliable" as an ally. AUKUS at its root started with the Australian submarine crisis, namely the Collins class fiasco and the subsequent French mismanagement of the Collins replacement program, the Attack Class. The recent experiences that Australia had with Sweden and the Collins submarine and again with France and the Attack class proposed, has made them turn once again to the "partner they trust to fix it all" to get them out of a geopolitical and domestic industrial difficulty. I have followed the shenanigans of AUKUS and its backstory for months. As near as I can figure it out, the Australians want the TRIAD without the "nuclear" in it to maintain their own national security. The desire for a nuclear powered submarine fleet of their own is just the camel's nose. They want subs, aircraft and missiles as their ultimate package. To that end they have signed agreements to procure aircraft, subs and land based hypersonic glide body weapons from the United States and the United Kingdom. I suspect the subs will be a version of the Astute Class to mollify the UK. Aircraft will be the F-35 or its British equivalent. The HGV will be the US Army variant and will function as a sea denial weapon rather than a land strike option. All conventional armed without nuclear payloads as per Australia's political decision to be a non-nuclear weapon armed state. The UK of course is after the same thing, but they will have their nuclear option. The Americans supply torpedoes, reactors, missile boosters and technical assistance, but they get to spread their own triad out globally as a result as do the British. AUKUS is really very strange when one examines it. [/quote] |
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Dec 4, 2021 11:42:41 GMT
Not really. It follows the consistent Australian geostrategic goal since 1901 of getting our Great and Powerful Friend(s) tied to us at the hip, so we can get the enhanced security that we can't pay for ourselves.
We are very keen on getting the British back in the Far East as it increases our support in the area and ties the Americans to us with an extra level of closeness. The Poms were our main military supplier until the mid 1960s and there is already a lot of 'cross-pollination' between the RN and RAN.
The French sub deal was entirely a domestic political gambit and a stupid one at that.
We are already getting the F-35 and not getting enough of them. We really need something with longer range and striking power, similar with submarines.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,031
Likes: 49,431
|
Post by lordroel on Dec 4, 2021 11:53:30 GMT
Not really. It follows the consistent Australian geostrategic goal since 1901 of getting our Great and Powerful Friend(s) tied to us at the hip, so we can get the enhanced security that we can't pay for ourselves. We are very keen on getting the British back in the Far East as it increases our support in the area and ties the Americans to us with an extra level of closeness. The Poms were our main military supplier until the mid 1960s and there is already a lot of 'cross-pollination' between the RN and RAN. The French sub deal was entirely a domestic political gambit and a stupid one at that. We are already getting the F-35 and not getting enough of them. We really need something with longer range and striking power, similar with submarines. The RAN is already getting back with the RN, the new Hunter-class frigate is a example. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,856
Likes: 13,235
|
Post by stevep on Dec 4, 2021 12:09:37 GMT
Dammit... I go on vacation and then work 50+ hours in a week, don't have time to log on and I missed out on the best time to post the reply I just wrote. I'm going to post it anyway, because I have been sampling the single malt and I think I typed up something pretty good. This is in response to SteveP's post at the bottom of Page 2 of the thread. I agree that we're discussing things at cross purposes. My point is that you don't NEED a nuke to wreck either bombers or silos at an island base. You need a sub nearby with some kind of missile able to attack either silos or runways/hangers/aircraft on the ground. Conventional weapons would work just fine. The problem with the small island is the reaction time of the defenders. I'm not talking about a "bolt from the blue" kind of attack, either. Consider a war scenario. You've sunk a large chunk of your deterrent dollars/pounds/whatever into a small island somewhere remote. You are at war with a peer adversary. Your men are trained well, and on their toes. How much warning do you need to flush the bombers? How much warning do you need to flush your silos? If a sub is close, and by close, I mean 50 miles off shore, you're going to get less than 3 minutes warning. Bombers WILL NOT make it into the air, with the very unlikely possibility of your Alert birds. The missiles in the silos? I don't think you'll get them off either. Yes, with solid fueled rockets, you can push a button and they launch with a very small delay (how small? I don't know, and I am not going to ask, as I like my fingers in their current configuration). The problem is, a missile that is launched from 50 miles away will traverse that distance in, what, 3 minutes? Maybe 4? If you've got a ship parked over the sub doing the launching, your crew has to see the launch, recognize it as such, pull up the radio, connect with the other side, and send the launch warning. Total elapsed time? 30 to 90 seconds. The warning has to be received and retransmitted to the appropriate Command and Control, who have to make the decision to fire your nukes or not, and make that decision in time to send the launch orders to the island. Even if your bombers are sitting on the threshold of the runway with the engines running when the order comes in, there's another 30 to 90 seconds to start getting the planes off the ground. Do the math. The people giving the orders have, AT MOST, 2 minutes to make the "Shall we play a game" decision. Every second they delay is one less second for the planes to take off or the silos to flush their missiles. This is the reason why the UK did NOT go with silos for their nuclear deterrent. Forget the civilian population, the reason they did not go with silos is because in an all out nuclear war, they would loose their capacity to use the ICBMs before they were able to make the go/no go decision to use them. Any small landmass used as a base for nuclear weapons will NOT give you a weapon you will ever be able to use. Look at where the US, Russia and China have their silos. Middle of their continental landmass. Of course, since Russian and China share the same landmass, they ALWAYS have to have their guys on high alert to avoid a sneak attack. But the main point is that they keep the silos far away from deep water, as Simon pointed out. The only scenario where building silos or bomber bases at Ascension or Diego Garcia makes sense is if you are planning a first strike. Belushi TD
I would agree with the bulk of your argument but as I think I said I see merit in a small silo force as part of the deterrent against a war which isn't all out. If you want to fire a 'warning' shot to warn that the opponent is crossing a red line then it would be better to have such a capacity that doesn't expose the location of one of your few boomers.
Steve
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,031
Likes: 49,431
|
Post by lordroel on Dec 4, 2021 12:12:10 GMT
I would agree with the bulk of your argument but as I think I said I see merit in a small silo force as part of the deterrent against a war which isn't all out. If you want to fire a 'warning' shot to warn that the opponent is crossing a red line then it would be better to have such a capacity that doesn't expose the location of one of your few boomers. Steve
Is that not what the French nuclear option was towards the Soviets during the Cold War, to give a warning to the Soviets if they crossed the Rhine. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,856
Likes: 13,235
|
Post by stevep on Dec 4, 2021 12:15:16 GMT
Why not add Canada to the list and call it CANUKAUS ore something like that. There are serious geopolitical issues between Ottawa and Washington that have to be resolved. The Canadians may be staunch allies, but they do have grievances that makes such a "nuclear" alliance problematic.
Do you mean that Washington wouldn't like nuclear weapons on Canadian soil that it wouldn't have direct control of? I did mention before that this would be the problem in a CANUK alliance which saw British nukes based in Canada. - The obvious location geographically if the Commonwealth wanted a land based part of a nuclear deterrent. Australia would be an option nowadays give the rise of an expansionist and powerful China but for most of the cold war period with the USSR its a bloody long way from targets in the latter for land based missiles. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,856
Likes: 13,235
|
Post by stevep on Dec 4, 2021 12:20:38 GMT
I would agree with the bulk of your argument but as I think I said I see merit in a small silo force as part of the deterrent against a war which isn't all out. If you want to fire a 'warning' shot to warn that the opponent is crossing a red line then it would be better to have such a capacity that doesn't expose the location of one of your few boomers. Steve
Is that not what the French nuclear option was towards the Soviets during the Cold War, to give a warning to the Soviets if they crossed the Rhine.
It was probably a factor and why they kept some IRBMs on the plateau Albion I think it was called. The problem with a small SSBM force is that at any time something like 50%+ are in port during refits and crew changes so are vulnerable to a sudden strike. If you only have 1 or 2 at sea and feel the need to send a warning shot then using one of them to fire it exposes its location which further undermines your deterrent potential. I do remember reading the old R force subs were designed with the capacity to launch missiles from harbour so there's the possibility that one of those could fire such a shot. Given as belushitd, mentioned the limited warning times I doubt they would have much potential to launch in a retalitory strike in the event of either an all out attack or simply a counter-force one against the UK.
|
|
belushitd
Warrant Officer
Posts: 205
Likes: 258
|
Post by belushitd on Dec 4, 2021 16:08:06 GMT
Dammit... I go on vacation and then work 50+ hours in a week, don't have time to log on and I missed out on the best time to post the reply I just wrote. I'm going to post it anyway, because I have been sampling the single malt and I think I typed up something pretty good. This is in response to SteveP's post at the bottom of Page 2 of the thread. I agree that we're discussing things at cross purposes. My point is that you don't NEED a nuke to wreck either bombers or silos at an island base. You need a sub nearby with some kind of missile able to attack either silos or runways/hangers/aircraft on the ground. Conventional weapons would work just fine. The problem with the small island is the reaction time of the defenders. I'm not talking about a "bolt from the blue" kind of attack, either. Consider a war scenario. You've sunk a large chunk of your deterrent dollars/pounds/whatever into a small island somewhere remote. You are at war with a peer adversary. Your men are trained well, and on their toes. How much warning do you need to flush the bombers? How much warning do you need to flush your silos? If a sub is close, and by close, I mean 50 miles off shore, you're going to get less than 3 minutes warning. Bombers WILL NOT make it into the air, with the very unlikely possibility of your Alert birds. The missiles in the silos? I don't think you'll get them off either. Yes, with solid fueled rockets, you can push a button and they launch with a very small delay (how small? I don't know, and I am not going to ask, as I like my fingers in their current configuration). The problem is, a missile that is launched from 50 miles away will traverse that distance in, what, 3 minutes? Maybe 4? If you've got a ship parked over the sub doing the launching, your crew has to see the launch, recognize it as such, pull up the radio, connect with the other side, and send the launch warning. Total elapsed time? 30 to 90 seconds. The warning has to be received and retransmitted to the appropriate Command and Control, who have to make the decision to fire your nukes or not, and make that decision in time to send the launch orders to the island. Even if your bombers are sitting on the threshold of the runway with the engines running when the order comes in, there's another 30 to 90 seconds to start getting the planes off the ground. Do the math. The people giving the orders have, AT MOST, 2 minutes to make the "Shall we play a game" decision. Every second they delay is one less second for the planes to take off or the silos to flush their missiles. This is the reason why the UK did NOT go with silos for their nuclear deterrent. Forget the civilian population, the reason they did not go with silos is because in an all out nuclear war, they would loose their capacity to use the ICBMs before they were able to make the go/no go decision to use them. Any small landmass used as a base for nuclear weapons will NOT give you a weapon you will ever be able to use. Look at where the US, Russia and China have their silos. Middle of their continental landmass. Of course, since Russian and China share the same landmass, they ALWAYS have to have their guys on high alert to avoid a sneak attack. But the main point is that they keep the silos far away from deep water, as Simon pointed out. The only scenario where building silos or bomber bases at Ascension or Diego Garcia makes sense is if you are planning a first strike. Belushi TD
I would agree with the bulk of your argument but as I think I said I see merit in a small silo force as part of the deterrent against a war which isn't all out. If you want to fire a 'warning' shot to warn that the opponent is crossing a red line then it would be better to have such a capacity that doesn't expose the location of one of your few boomers.
Steve
"warning" shots are not a thing in nuclear deterrence. The thought that you might lose some of your force causes you to flush them all. Its a "If one flies, they all fly" scenario. Warning shots are not part of ANY country's nuclear warfare plan, just like the police are not trained to fire warning shots when shooting an individual. The only unbelievable part of "Team Yankee" is the idea that the Russians would only fire one ICBM and that NATO would only fire one in return. Belushi TD |
|
