Britains Nuclear Defence…..radio 2 discussion

Here’s where i got it from, with pic n’ all…
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?p=1403751
At the altitude this thing will operate at, a missile with burnt out engine will have approximately zilch chance to hit a maneuvering target.

ed: May i ask how in Buddhas name i can make a pic here ?!
either from a saved pic on my puter or from a site ??!

That’s messed up, but i saved the text, if not the pic, it’s a UCAV, and envisaged to be ready by 2030.

That description you posted sounds like it was written by a 4 year old for a 2 year old. You sure it came from the real website?

Interesting idea, but being able to alter it’s route doesn’t make it any less intercept-able than a manned aircraft. The only thing it’ll have going for it are stealth and speed, which can both be combated given enough time.

That’s messed up, but i saved the text, if not the pic, it’s a UCAV, and envisaged to be ready by 2030.

Mach 6 with a 9,000 mile combat radius, it can kill any target, anywhere,
using conventional warhead PGMs within 2 hours of the command to “GO”.
It employs conventional takeoff and landing from a runway within the US
(forward deployment is unnecessary). Its flight path follows multiple waypoints
and can be altered enroute, making interception impossible with today’s weaponry.
It is as more of a game-changer than F-22’s stealth/supercruise. All it takes is money and time.

Until ABM are proven and wide spread, nuffing beats SSBN.
After that, i’d go for low RCS cruise missiles, in which case the Vanguard can be modified to carry them too, in much larger numbers.

This little thing could perhaps be an alternative, tho i think it’s more of tactical use.
http://www.darpa.mil/tto/programs/Falcon.htm

Page Cannot Be Found

We have recently redesigned our site and the page you have requested has moved.

Until ABM are proven and wide spread, nuffing beats SSBN.
After that, i’d go for low RCS cruise missiles, in which case the Vanguard can be modified to carry them too, in much larger numbers.

This little thing could perhaps be an alternative, tho i think it’s more of tactical use.
http://www.darpa.mil/tto/programs/Falcon.htm

The Victors were pretty damn impressive as well, but there’s a lot of other things I’d much rather see the money spent on.

I always rated the Victor over the Vulcan. Carried 15 more 1,000lbs for a start.

The Victors were pretty damn impressive as well, but there’s a lot of other things I’d much rather see the money spent on.

what other response would you expect from Key Publishing forum than that all four Vanguards should be moored immediately and Vulcans and Victors put back in service armed with nukes by tomorrow evening! 😀

Seriously guys, you freak out over nothing.

I did like the Vulcan, beautiful plane. But most people here i’ve spoken would rather see the Vanguard’s replaced

I’d like to see them complemented with some new type of strategic bomber (new V bombers yey!) for use in Afghanistan and possibly a secondary nuclear role. Won’t happen though.

whats the general opinion on this forum!!!

what other response would you expect from Key Publishing forum than that all four Vanguards should be moored immediately and Vulcans and Victors put back in service armed with nukes by tomorrow evening! 😀

Seriously guys, you freak out over nothing.

And that’s what the general public in Britain don’t get, the only proof you can possibly have that they work is that we are still here, have never been attacked with WMDs and have never had to use them ourselves. Unless you can see alternate timelines where we don’t have them you can’t say they haven’t worked.

People in this country are generally idiots when it comes to serious discussion on this sort of issue though. We are the only nuclear armed country where there is even proper serious debate about getting rid of them. One of these days I relaly should just move to the US or China.