Demon Lord Razgriz wrote: |
I agree on 1 1/2 points made by Prae.
The UK is a large island nation, so the Navy should be in charge of Air Defense & such so roll the RAF into the RN. Then take many of the RAF bases and sell them to the public, then using the funds gained to build more carriers. Keep a few land bases for the mundane chores such as large cargo transport, or sell them all and keep a few hangers at the now civilian Airports.
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).
Don't disband the army, just bring them home.
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.
Keep the Tridents til the US comes up with a new SLBM,
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.
which according to the latest news as reverted to a Trident D5 design so the old boomers can use them as well as the new ones.
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.
Keep & expand the CVF fleet,
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.
but in a CATOBAR form cause for the love of god,
Yeah that's how at least one of them are going to be built.
Queen Elizabeth is still up in the air.
KILL THE JSF!!!
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.