Absolute waste of money

Ohh... I thought they had something, I'm not a strategist for the MoD but don't they see a strategic bomber as essential?

Devilwasp,

Do you feel the UK needs a strategic bomber?

Cheers

BHR

Please, please, please can we get back on thread?

When I originally posed the statement or question, I did not realise that it would degenerate into a mud slinging match. I am just as guilty as the rest, but this thread is about an 'Absolute Waste of Money' and not about the virtues of various aircraft. Those points of views have been aired quite well on other threads.

So please guys (where are the girls?) can we get back on topic and to start you off, what, in your opinion, is an absolute waste of money, in your respective countries?

Fritz,

As I said earlier, look at the biggest capital programs in the UK and then look at the involvement of one company, then look and see how said projects are getting on.

Cheers

BHR

the UK hasnt had a strategic bomber since the Vulcans were withdrawn in the mid 80's. They are looking into replacing the capability as part of FOAS

[edit on 6-4-2005 by paperplane_uk]

Paper,

Do you have a link for FOAS?

Cheers

BHR

Originally posted by BillHicksRules
Paper,

Do you have a link for FOAS?

Cheers

BHR

There are two quick ones

www.mod.uk...
www.airforce-technology.com...

Paper,

Two very good links.

Thanks very much.

Cheers

BHR

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Ohh... I thought they had something, I'm not a strategist for the MoD but don't they see a strategic bomber as essential?

Well I see it as important since our only nuke deterant is by sea....the MOD...i dunno..

DW,

Why do we still need a nuke deterrent?

Cheers

BHR

Originally posted by BillHicksRules
Why do we still need a nuke deterrent?

Because its our only real weapon against invasion....could you really see the public of the UK signing up in thier hundreds against an invadeing army?

DW,

Two questions,

1) Who do you envisage invading us?
2) Where would you send the nukes if we were invaded?

Cheers

BHR

Other than the Tridents the brits don`t have any other nukes any more - they scrapped the WE 177 in 1998

Harlequin,

You might be right and then again.....

Cheers

BHR

Originally posted by BillHicksRules
1) Who do you envisage invading us?

The future is uncertain if we wish to survive we must be prepared..

2) Where would you send the nukes if we were invaded?

Most likely to military instalations of the invadeing enemy, now we have no idea who or how far that is so the longer reaching arm we have the better.....by using only one force to defend ourselves with nukes we reduce our effectiveness by 2/3rds

DW,

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by BillHicksRules
1) Who do you envisage invading us?

The future is uncertain if we wish to survive we must be prepared..

2) Where would you send the nukes if we were invaded?

Most likely to military instalations of the invadeing enemy, now we have no idea who or how far that is so the longer reaching arm we have the better.....by using only one force to defend ourselves with nukes we reduce our effectiveness by 2/3rds

I have to ask where do you get the figure you quote above? Why 2/3rds as opposed 3/5ths or 5/8ths?

The Americans have a Nuclear Triad but two legs of that are Ballistic Missiles and the third leg, the bombers is a minor part of the triad. So much so there is talk of removing it altogether.

I have to say that anyone with the sealift capacity to make a serious go at invading us is going to have nukes anyway. So you take the move from invasion and subjugation to total annihilation. Some choice.

Do you know what the government use as the continued justification for the nuclear deterrent?

Cheers

BHR

Originally posted by BillHicksRules
I have to ask where do you get the figure you quote above? Why 2/3rds as opposed 3/5ths or 5/8ths?

Because we have 3 services;the RN , the army and the RAF...sicne 2 do not operate nuclear capabilities then we are down operationaly by 2/3rds...

The Americans have a Nuclear Triad but two legs of that are Ballistic Missiles and the third leg, the bombers is a minor part of the triad. So much so there is talk of removing it altogether.

So?
They still have 2 chances of suceeding we just have one..

I have to say that anyone with the sealift capacity to make a serious go at invading us is going to have nukes anyway. So you take the move from invasion and subjugation to total annihilation. Some choice.

Well lets see..who is going to invade us when they know we will use nukes?

Do you know what the government use as the continued justification for the nuclear deterrent?

To act as a deterant to anyone who attacks us...thats the basic bit BUT if you want to qoute directly from the mod

1. Deterrence, arms control and proliferation are critically important to Britain's security

Originally posted by Harlequin
Other than the Tridents the brits don`t have any other nukes any more - they scrapped the WE 177 in 1998

There have been persistant rumours that they were not scapped in the traditional sense, but mothballed (much like old navy subs) by the AWE somewhere, just in case.

It is suprising how few people know the GR1/4 is capable of carrying nuclear weapons!

[edit on 6-4-2005 by paperplane_uk]

DW

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by BillHicksRules
I have to ask where do you get the figure you quote above? Why 2/3rds as opposed 3/5ths or 5/8ths?

Because we have 3 services;the RN , the army and the RAF...sicne 2 do not operate nuclear capabilities then we are down operationaly by 2/3rds...

The Americans have a Nuclear Triad but two legs of that are Ballistic Missiles and the third leg, the bombers is a minor part of the triad. So much so there is talk of removing it altogether.

So?
They still have 2 chances of suceeding we just have one..

I have to say that anyone with the sealift capacity to make a serious go at invading us is going to have nukes anyway. So you take the move from invasion and subjugation to total annihilation. Some choice.

Well lets see..who is going to invade us when they know we will use nukes?

Do you know what the government use as the continued justification for the nuclear deterrent?

To act as a deterant to anyone who attacks us...thats the basic bit BUT if you want to qoute directly from the mod

1. Deterrence, arms control and proliferation are critically important to Britain's security

Devil, Devil, Devil,

Do you live in round house because due to your logic it appears that you like going in round in circles.

The US Army has no strategic nuclear capability, neither do the Marines or the Coastguard. Does that mean they are down by 3/5ths?

If you are that concerned about us not having enough nukes, should we build more SSBNs or should we install some ICBM fields in Stirlingshire?

Cheers

BHR

P.S. I have not forgotten your last point and I will come back to it.

bill,


To completely and totally clarify a major misunderstanding you have:

The US bomber fleet carryis bigger weapons than the minuteman`s do - and can deliver them more accurately ; this is the complete opposite of the russian weapons , where they aim , in the main for groundbursts and have multi megatonne warheads on the icbm`s but much smaller bombs, the us have smaller warheads on the missiles in the `fields` , but larger bombs for the aircraft.

why? well the bomber fleet is able to target the harder to find , more mobile launchers from the air , and on route - whereas you can`t re programme a warhead when your commited to launch, without a full abort!

Once authorisation is received , one of the first stages is to load the flight system with the target data (after authentication and removal of the keys from the `hot` safe) then you prep the bird for launch.