Shipbucket

If they reduce the Type 45 order what would happen regarding the Type 42s? Just keep them on for x amount of time and replace them with nothing?

_________________
AU Projects: | Banbha et al. | New England: The Divided States
Blood and Fire

The R.N. has to loose 12 'frigate' sized warships; so that leaves it smaller than Portugals navy.

Transport is hardly a whole service branch. Though there is merit in most of the land-based helicopters (ie. excluding SAR) and cargo planes going to the Army Air Corps rather than RN.
But why do we even need an army? What vital interests does it serve? Our ability to retaliate for terrorist attacks on foreign countries in a costly and ineffective manner...?

Wow that’s Stupid beyond all belief. Even if we accept the stupid and crazy premise that the RAF would be folded into the FAA, if they cut the airbases out they would lose almost all ability to secure the aircraft on the ground from ground attack such as Mortars (This crops up with the USAF decommissioning of the Cheyenne Mountain Complex).
Right now the Army is the main arm of the British Armed forces. Keeping troops in support of American missions around the globe buys them (or would if our current president didn’t keep blowing them off) political capital with the US.
If the US builds a new SLBM. We don't know what the Trident Replacement is going to be, but I doubt it will be an SLBM - and here is why.

The Technology behind modern Hit-To-Kill missile defense was around in the 1960s with the NIKE-ZEUS program. The only reason that it wasn't deployed nationally in the US was that there was significant political opposition, and fear that it would force the Russians to use their weapons against the US before the shield went up, and the delivery systems became useless (same fears that lead to the ABM treaty). Technology didn't stand still, and the US was forced to nerf both the SAM-D and the Standard Missile System to keep them from being classed as ABMs. The Russians on the other hand kept the ABM interceptors around Moscow (more on that later) and deployed large numbers of S-200 missiles (NATO SA-5 "Gammon") and later S-300 (NATO SA-10 "Grumble", SA-12 "Gladiator/Giant") which gave the entire nation a low-level ABM shield.

Now in the 1960s the Brits were in a pickle. Their current deterrent force, the V-Bombers, were getting older and had a serious problem - they only had about 5 minutes to get off the ground before they would be destroyed. At the time it was estimated that they could get roughly 50 planes in the air, and each plane would, on average, be able to hit one target (so 50 target cities would be destroyed). Now looking forward the Brits saw the potential development of SAMs (which didn't happen until the 80's and later) that would murder the V-bombers, so they looked for other options. Land Based Ballistic Missiles wouldn't work, because they had the same warning issues*, which just left a Sea Based deterrent. So the Brits bought into the Polaris Program. This gave them one boat on patrol at all times, with 16 missiles per boat.

Oh, so 16 targets you might be thinking, only no, you don't. You get less than that due to possible failures in the missiles. The Brits then went for a MRV system, like the US, and put a total of 3 warheads on each SLBM - mostly to ensure target destruction (three well placed smaller warheads can offer a larger destructive area than one big one). So 48 warheads. Now you might be thinking that 48 warheads means that they can hit as many targets as they did with the V-bomber force, and you would be wrong again.

By the time that the Brits were deploying Polaris, the Soviets were begining to deploy their ABM screen. Because the Soviets could shoot down the missiles, the Brits were reduced to just hitting one target - Moscow†. This means that the Brits had suffered a virtual Attrition of 98%. The switch to Polaris from the V-bombers and the Soviet ABM system had saved 49 Soviet cities without firing a shot‡. Knowing this the Brits also bought into the American "Antelope" and "Super Antelope" Penetration Aid programs. The fact was that neither program worked very well at all (to work properly your decoy needs to have the exact same radar, thermal, and mass profile as a real warhead, so you might as well just stick the real thing on the bus instead of a decoy), and the US pulled out after deploying the PenAids on just one SSBN for just one cruise. The Brits, in a very sticky situation at this point, knuckled under and tried to get Chevaline (as they renamed it to avoid the fact that the program didn't work) to work, and deployed it. The mass and volume of Chevaline was such that they could now only mount two warheads per missile. The Brits, now really stuck had to accept the loss of their strategic power until they got the Trident system in the early 90’s.

Now that we have a bit of history on the British nuclear deterrent, modern stuff. As I mentioned before the US and the USSR continued to develop ABM tech even though the ABM treaty was in place (with the US following the rules and the Soviets flat out cheating). What most people forget is that because development was slowed, the rest of the world is now catching up to the US and Russia in the ABM/ASAT fields. Remember that those ASAT tests that China has been doing for the past few years? The same systems that they use for ASAT can be used for ABM. The Indians and Israelis are in the same boat (The Indian program is quite telling – they have no sensors on the interceptor [everything is done via ground control], thus cutting interceptor costs dramatically). This means that by earliest that a new SLBM force could come online (2025-2030) the rest of the world would be finishing the deployment of national ABM systems (Over 15 nations are working on local ABM systems including South Korea, Japan, Germany, Taiwan, the PRC, India, Israel, Brazil, France, ect). This ties in with the fact that US deployment isn’t a question of “Will ABM exist” but a question of “Will the US have ABM when the rest of the world does”. From my perspective it’s a damning paradigm if the US doesn’t go ahead with full ABM development.

Taking all of this into consideration, the Trident Replacement is up in the air as to what it is going to look like. Some of the options under consideration include a boosted hypersonic glider, various cruise missiles, replacement SLBMs (highly unlikely given what I outlined above), or even not replacing them at all (an SM-3 derived Prompt Global Strike variant is a strong possibility – I bet the Brits now wish they would have gone with the Mk-41 VLS on the T45s instead of the Sylver VLS).

* The US doesn't have the warning issues the Brits have because of sheer size. It would take an SLBM a minimum of 15 minutes to get from the coast to one of the big SAC bomber bases in the midwest. This figure sets the time that the SAC/GSC crews have to get the planes in the air - and they practice for this. One day I hope to see a MITO (Minimum Interval Take Off) in person.

†The British planning assumed that Moscow had the same over all strategic importance as London, when in fact it doesn't. Moscow would be closer to Washington D.C. in strategic importance - annoying to lose, but not totally fatal. In some ways, the apparent importance of Moscow to Russia/The USSR is the biggest strategic feint in history, and also probably the most successful as people keep falling for it.

‡This is why ABM is so important, it forces the opponent into a different strategic paradigm.
The D5s are still being built at a very low rate. It’s a very nice booster. I’m just not sure that Ballistic warheads are the right payload for it.


I presume you mean Build the CVFs? The other issue with them is escorts. If the Brits only build 6-7 T45s then they are stuck with only having enough escorts for two carriers, which means a third carrier would require atleast 3 more T45s. Hopefully they get the Radars and missile systems working on them, as right now the T45s are the world’s most expensive gunboats.
Yeah that's how at least one of them are going to be built. Queen Elizabeth is still up in the air.
No. The JSF is one of only two 5th Gen Fighters to have flown (the T-50 was never 100% confirmed to be the Pak-FA, and thus doesn't count), and the only one that anyone other than the US is scheduled to get (note, I'm only talking about the ones that have flown). Besides what would they replace it with? Navalized Typhoons? Give me a break, because that program is a joke.

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆

Who is going to fire mortars at our carriers? Not sure I follow this.

The whole problem w/the RAF is, it's great if you want to fight an air war within about 1,000km of the British Isles. Which means, essentially, a war with France or Germany. I don't think this is going to happen any time soon so it's not sensible to spend a lot of money on this.
What can one buy with this 'political' capital? If Hilary Clinton's statements on the Falklands are to be taken at face value, USA doesn't even take a firm position in favour of Britain's territorial integrity! Personally I'd rather have the money. Unlike political capital, money is accepted at all major retailers in all countries.




As to your comments on the future of the nuclear deterrent and ABM, notsureifserious.jpg.

Swing and a Miss. No one, but I could see a terrorist (or special forces attack in wartime) on British air bases if they can't secure them properly.
It's also useful when you can bases forces out of friendly air fields.
Hence my comment about the current administration. I swear it's almost like the President blames the current UK for his father's misfortune or something. The other option is simple stupidity, and I'm not willing to rule either out.

Quite serious. The fact is that right now, ICBMs are nearing obsolescence and SLBMs have 15, maybe 20 years on the outside before total obsolescence.

Anyone care to hazard a guess why the time difference?

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆

I rate this scenario lolwat out of 10 on the reasonable threat scale.

But how would cutting airbases entirely make this more likely?

Yes. I choose to base out of carriers. Guaranteed friendly, can move anywhere.
So it seems political capital buys nothing. I'm not sure what Britain has ever received from its relationship with the US. Extortionate loan terms, etc. are available even to third world, so that's hardly anything special.
Most of what I've read doesn't take ABM seriously. All of the trials have pretty well failed. Yet you seem to think it will become near 100% effective in 20 years.

Fewer and less secured facilities = Less effort needed to attack said facilities = Higher likelihood of attack
And inherently limited in what they can take along, in both aircraft, munitions, and other stores.
Trident, Polaris, Sidewinders (during the Falklands), and a place under our strategic umbrella just to start with.

1. You are reading the wrong stuff.
2. Most of the trials haven't failed, and the few that have teach us how to make the system better. I would like to see your source - and if it's Ted Postol I'm going to laugh (the man is a known liar)
3. It doesn't have to be 100% effective to be worth it. Even a 25% chance of an ICBM shootdown makes the prospect of an ICBM attack untenable.
4. NIKE-ZEUS, a product of the 1960's and armed with a nuclear warhead was doing Skin-skin kill shots in in the test phase: 59 Kills out of 63 test shots, with an estimated 10-16 of the 59 being kinetic kills (IE what we are doing now with GBI and the SM-3.

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆

Seriously? Few bases means they're easier to hit? You'd think with fewer bases, you can focus on more effective security of those few bases, like putting in one of those Israeli Anti-Munition Lasers and more patrols. And outside of full on invasion, I doubt bases in the UK would be attacked.

Build about 6-8 CVFs and I think the UK will be able to cover the limitations of aircraft & munitions.

What combat aircraft does the RAF has that a Hornets can't do the same job? Cause they don't have anymore bombers. And why would navalizing the Eurofighter be a joke? The Russians seem to be able to successfully convert a land based fighter to go to sea.

As for T-50 PAK-FA? What the hell are you smoking? The Russians have stated repeatedly that the T-50 is PAK-FA.

_________________
95% of my drawings are destined for NS, 4.9% for fun, & .1% serious.
Worklist:
Space Shuttle
Atlas V
Delta II/III
Project Constellation
Soyuz series

C-RAM (Counter Artillery Rocket and Mortar) systems are expensive and offer a limited footprint. The original statement I was tearing apart is the fact that one of you wanted to co-locate the new FAA (that had eaten the RAF) on civilian air fields, without making any improvements in security of said facilities. And just because you don't see something happening, doesn't mean it can't, or that people who are smarter and more well informed than you don't see it happening either.
No. Read Norman Friedman's U.S. Aircraft Carriers An Illustrated Design History then get back to me you little child.
Sentry AEW.1. And, yes the Super Hornet is an excellent aircraft, but it is a 4.5 gen plane, and will killed in the face of 5th gen opponents.

The Typhoon was designed as a land based fighter. It's not easy to take a land based fighter and turn it into a naval fighter. The only reason the Soviets were able to do so as easily as they did was that most of their aircraft were built for rougher (and thus structurally more stressful) field conditions than western fighters were built for. Corrosion is also an issue that comes up.
Look at the front view of the T-50. You can see the freaking compressor face.

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆