US/UK SSBN news

I have another great idea, lets burn the entire US Navy budget for a decade on one single, entirely useless, Boomer:

The navy would have more than enough money in their budget if we kick all the deadbeats and malcontents off the dole and make them work for a living.

Wrong! All the signatories agreed at the time that the successor states to the USSR were bound by the treaties, & the successor states all agreed that they were. The treaties continued in force, with appropriate amendments to take account of the split.

This is pretty normal. When countries split, they don’t wipe out their debts, for example. The successor states get assigned shares of them.

Dude, seriously, who cares about treaties. I mean c’mon, it’s not like we’ve never broken a treaty before. Just ask the Indians(feathers not dots). Besides, everybody else is building new stuff, the Russkies the Chinese, everybody. We still got the same old stuff from the 70’s and 80’s! There’s no reason why we shouldn’t be building BIGGER, and more BADA$$ nukes and in greater numbers than everybody else combined. We can’t allow the rest of the world to have an advantage over us militarily.

Dude, seriously, who’s the dbag that decided we need FEWER boomers that carry fewer missiles? I mean c’mon, we should have AT LEAST 18 boomers that are even bigger and more bada$$ than the ones they’re replacing. I’m thinkin’ something double the size of the Ohio class with twice as many missiles that carry twice as many warheads.

Gotta think BIG!

YYYYYYYYYYYYYEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH

Yeah,BIG

I have another great idea, lets burn the entire US Navy budget for a decade on one single, entirely useless, Boomer:

Now carry on, nothing to see here…

Dude, seriously, most of those treaties were signed between the United States and the Soviet Union and since the Soviet Union no longer exists those treaties are null and void.

Wrong! All the signatories agreed at the time that the successor states to the USSR were bound by the treaties, & the successor states all agreed that they were. The treaties continued in force, with appropriate amendments to take account of the split.

This is pretty normal. When countries split, they don’t wipe out their debts, for example. The successor states get assigned shares of them.

Dude, seriously, most of those treaties were signed between the United States and the Soviet Union and since the Soviet Union no longer exists those treaties are null and void.

You are aware that treaties have been signed and put into effect since the fall of the USSR?
During Cold War submarines did not have to deal with the warhead limits both the US and Russia adhere to today.
Do you not pay attention to the news at all? Even recently there was a Nuclear-Arms treaty between Russia and US.

Dude, seriously, who’s the dbag that decided we need FEWER boomers that carry fewer missiles? I mean c’mon, we should have AT LEAST 18 boomers that are even bigger and more bada$$ than the ones they’re replacing. I’m thinkin’ something double the size of the Ohio class with twice as many missiles that carry twice as many warheads.

Gotta think BIG!

Are you aware that as underage you need your parents permission
to participate on this forum ?

The US is part of arms control treaties…

Dude, seriously, most of those treaties were signed between the United States and the Soviet Union and since the Soviet Union no longer exists those treaties are null and void.

Dude, seriously, who’s the dbag that decided we need FEWER boomers that carry fewer missiles? I mean c’mon, we should have AT LEAST 18 boomers that are even bigger and more bada$$ than the ones they’re replacing. I’m thinkin’ something double the size of the Ohio class with twice as many missiles that carry twice as many warheads.

Gotta think BIG!

The US is part of arms control treaties.
You know the Ohio’s are not all deploying with full missile loads rights?
It is a pointless capability at this point.

Gotta think SMART.

Dude, seriously, who’s the dbag that decided we need FEWER boomers that carry fewer missiles? I mean c’mon, we should have AT LEAST 18 boomers that are even bigger and more bada$$ than the ones they’re replacing. I’m thinkin’ something double the size of the Ohio class with twice as many missiles that carry twice as many warheads.

Gotta think BIG!

I’m assuming you meant the F111 was designed to replace the B52? It wasn’t, it was a totally different role, that at one point was going to be a carrier fighter.

I have been having a look at that point. It turns out that MacNamara, who thought that manned bombers were obsolete, did plan to scrap the B52 force and “replace” it with just 200 F111s, much to the disgust of Curtis LeMay. So although the F111 was not a replacement for the B52 in a functional sense, operationally it would have been, had MacNamara’s career not crashed and burned in Vietnam.

I would not be so sure that the Russians do not pose a threat.
Putin and his merry band of gangsters, will do whatever they can, and threaten whoever they need to to maintain power.
The post Soviet streak of ruthlessness was shown in the two Chechen wars, with its aftermath of mass graves and massive civilians casualties. Its dealing with Georgia is another concern.
Although wiki is not the best source, the page on the current Russian navy , shows a decent sized fleet, ships waiting refurbishment and return to the fleet and a healthy new build programme of frigates, SSNS, SSBNs, SSK’s and a build up in amphibious forces. Add new ICBM’S, new SLBM’s, a modernisation of the airforce and we could face quite a threat. They are planning to spend $70 billion on improving their nuclear arsenal in the next decade. No threat? Are you sure? Add their 650 theatre nuclear weapons still west of moscow, their continual paranoia over western technology such as ABM technology, precision conventional weapons that may threaten their security.

The behaviour of the Russians over Syria, suggests that they are still prepared to play political games for Russian interests, a truly democratic country would not do that, it says a lot that it is them and the chinese who object to dictators being deposed.

Other factors of relevance is that 51% of the US populace supposedly see Asia and the Pacific as more important to their security, the USA might not always be there for us.
Fossil fuel stocks in western europe will run down and over the life of the successor boats there could be many new challenges to our trade and energy security.

I don’t think there is anything cosy and cuddly about the Russians, a declining population in a country riddled with corruption, still armed to the teeth.

The current Russian regime, whilst distasteful, does not have the ideological background of the USSR. Russia makes its living by selling Western Europe oil and gas, destroying its custmers would be a poor business model. I don’t trust Putin’s Russia, but nor do I think it poses anything like the risk to us of the USSR with thousands of tanks poised in East Germany to roll west.

Eh what?

So you thought it was 100kt rather than 200kt, and yet you still said this:

100kt x3 warheads x16 missiles=4.8 megatons for an R class boat verses 2.4 megatons for 1 Vulcan with 2 Skybolts.

Even if a Polaris warhead had 100kt it still makes your statement completely wrong, an R class would still have twice the firepower of 1 Vulcan with Skybolt.

Enough already. The point I was seeking to make was that with 72 Vulcans each with 2 Skybolts, the Skybolt equipped V Force would have been able to deploy significantly more firepower than a Polaris force of just 4 boats. Yes, I know all 72 Vulcans would not have been available at any one time, and that sometimes 2 Polaris boats would. I also take on board the point that Polaris provided a significantly better chance of a secure second strike. Nonetheless, Skybolt would have given Britain a very powerful nuclear strike force, I don’t think that can be denied, and on any reasonable expectations had the potential to deliver a far greater nuclear payoad than Polaris.

The Russians can do whatever they like on their own territory. They are not the USSR, the Cold War finished 20 years ago, and they do not pose an existential threat to the UK. As for CASD, we really need to get beyond this concept, it belongs in the past, along with the four minute warning. When the facts change, you really ought to change your opinions.

I would not be so sure that the Russians do not pose a threat.
Putin and his merry band of gangsters, will do whatever they can, and threaten whoever they need to to maintain power.
The post Soviet streak of ruthlessness was shown in the two Chechen wars, with its aftermath of mass graves and massive civilians casualties. Its dealing with Georgia is another concern.
Although wiki is not the best source, the page on the current Russian navy , shows a decent sized fleet, ships waiting refurbishment and return to the fleet and a healthy new build programme of frigates, SSNS, SSBNs, SSK’s and a build up in amphibious forces. Add new ICBM’S, new SLBM’s, a modernisation of the airforce and we could face quite a threat. They are planning to spend $70 billion on improving their nuclear arsenal in the next decade. No threat? Are you sure? Add their 650 theatre nuclear weapons still west of moscow, their continual paranoia over western technology such as ABM technology, precision conventional weapons that may threaten their security.

The behaviour of the Russians over Syria, suggests that they are still prepared to play political games for Russian interests, a truly democratic country would not do that, it says a lot that it is them and the chinese who object to dictators being deposed.

Other factors of relevance is that 51% of the US populace supposedly see Asia and the Pacific as more important to their security, the USA might not always be there for us.
Fossil fuel stocks in western europe will run down and over the life of the successor boats there could be many new challenges to our trade and energy security.

I don’t think there is anything cosy and cuddly about the Russians, a declining population in a country riddled with corruption, still armed to the teeth.

Twice the bang, but a lot more effective firepower than that. Destructive power does not vary linearly with the yield (i.e. the explosive power). It scales at about the 2/3 power. The simplistic comparison of megatonnage is therefore misleading. It needs to be converted into equivalent megatonnage. And even that will tend to overstate the effectiveness of fewer larger warheads relative to more smaller warheads, because in many cases (especially against soft cases), the smaller warhead will be big enough, & increasing its size is pointless.

Against the targets we were aiming at, each of the 16 Polaris missiles was more destructive than a Skybolt, despite the smaller explosive yield. A single Polaris boat with 16 missiles could therefore do more than eight times as much damage as one Vulcan with two Skybolt, & it had a better chance of surviving long enough to do that damage.

I would add to that point. John has repeatedly made the point that Polaris was a Moscow only system. It wasn’t until the 1980’s. We will never be told what the targets were but there are sources that say at the point of it’s adoption the possible destruction of a dozen Soviet Cities was the aim, and when first introduced that would be possible.
Soviet ABM build up prior to the cap on numbers at 100 was a factor that led to Chevaline, a horseshoe of interceptors and missile sites to the north of moscow and some facilities to the south.
It is fair to say that when the Labour Government went for Chevaline around 1975, the aim was to decapitate the means of the soviet regime to function, and that was Moscow, and the ABM numbers at 100, vs 2 slightly bigger 225kt warheads per missile plus 27 decoys , meant a virtual guarantee’d hit.
But as Chevaline did not enter service until 1982, it was only then that we can say with any certainty that Polaris was a Moscow only system.
A moderate spend on a 5 th boat would have ensured 2 on CASD and significantly improved the firepower. I still think Chevaline was a waste of £1billion, Poseidon would have fitted in to the tubes, maintaing 2,500mile range and unto 14 smaller 50kt warheads.

The point about Skybolt is that it also would have to face the same ABM threat. A range of 1000 miles, compared to 2,500 for polaris would suggest a lower flight zenith, which might suggest an easier system to deal with? We also don’t know the comparative CEP. Any upgrade to Skybolt would also need to be in the 11,000lb missile range for B2 to carry, so could a Chevaline like programme be possible? I doubt it, whereas a submarine based solution has proved there is room for growth.

Eh what?

So you thought it was 100kt rather than 200kt, and yet you still said this:

100kt x3 warheads x16 missiles=4.8 megatons for an R class boat verses 2.4 megatons for 1 Vulcan with 2 Skybolts.

Even if a Polaris warhead had 100kt it still makes your statement completely wrong, an R class would still have twice the firepower of 1 Vulcan with Skybolt.

Twice the bang, but a lot more effective firepower than that. Destructive power does not vary linearly with the yield (i.e. the explosive power). It scales at about the 2/3 power. The simplistic comparison of megatonnage is therefore misleading. It needs to be converted into equivalent megatonnage. And even that will tend to overstate the effectiveness of fewer larger warheads relative to more smaller warheads, because in many cases (especially against soft targets), the smaller warhead will be big enough, & increasing its size is pointless.

Against the targets we were aiming at, each of the 16 Polaris missiles was more destructive than a Skybolt, despite the smaller explosive yield. A single Polaris boat with 16 missiles could therefore do more than eight times as much damage as one Vulcan with two Skybolt, & it had a better chance of surviving long enough to do that damage.

The Russians can do whatever they like on their own territory. They are not the USSR, the Cold War finished 20 years ago, and they do not pose an existential threat to the UK. As for CASD, we really need to get beyond this concept, it belongs in the past, along with the four minute warning. When the facts change, you really ought to change your opinions.

//YESMINISTER

“Russians? Who said anything about the Russians? It’s to protect us from the French!”

Yes, the fact that I misremembered the payload of a Polaris A3 MRV as 100 kt rather than 200 kt clearly invalidates everything I had said. Give me a break.

Eh what?

So you thought it was 100kt rather than 200kt, and yet you still said this:

it is simply a matter of fact that one Vulcan with two Skybolts had at least as much nuclear firepower as a Polaris boat.

100kt x3 warheads x16 missiles=4.8 megatons for an R class boat verses 2.4 megatons for 1 Vulcan with 2 Skybolts.

Even if a Polaris warhead had 100kt it still makes your statement completely wrong, an R class would still have twice the firepower of 1 Vulcan with Skybolt.

The Russians can do whatever they like on their own territory. They are not the USSR, the Cold War finished 20 years ago, and they do not pose an existential threat to the UK. As for CASD, we really need to get beyond this concept, it belongs in the past, along with the four minute warning. When the facts change, you really ought to change your opinions.

Indeed they can do and are doing…with weapons that are able to threaten the UK given the political will to do so. That is a fact that has not changed.

CASD survivability is the core of deterrence…dismissing it renders any money spent on strategic weapons a waste as you cannot guarantee second strike without it.

mrm: PM Wilson/For.Sec.Callaghan funded Chevaline 9/75 as “‘Govts. did not want (USSR’s capital to be) a sanctuary’ (the nature) of the concept is (to rain) warheads and decoys (to) swamp the target (Its) effect does not come from the contents of (1xFBM but) probably (the 32xwarheads) complement of 1xSSBN (It is hard) to disentangle the system to take on a number of targets at once” L.Freedman,The Evolution of Nuclear Strategy,Macmillan,1981,P148. D.Healey, The Time of My Life,Penguin,1990,P455: (the sole nuclear error of the Labour Administration of 1974-79) “was not to cancel (Chevaline, causing Polaris RV to) penetrate the ABM system (then in hand) to protect Moscow. (For me it was not) necessary (to) be able to guarantee (its) destruction (but) the certain ability to threaten the destruction of (12) cities would be more than enough to deter an attack (if NATO) had disintegrated. (In) a paper on the so-called ‘Moscow Criterion’ (Staff reported) in favour (without) serious argument except that to cancel (would) damage our prestige in (US/USSR)”

A very interesting quote, an an illustration that much “argument” in the nuclear debate consists of notions of prestige and doing things because we have always done them. The money spent on Chevaline could have bought a couple of fleet carriers, how about that for “prestige”?

John

…and so we roll back to square one. As to the necessity for the continuation of the deterrent you only have to look back 30yrs to see how foolish it is to make a claim suggesting that the 30yrs to come will stay as strategically benign as they are now. It was, in fact, only a few weeks back that the Russians declared an intent to stand-up a second regiment of mobile RS-24’s in a region scarcely 200 miles west of good old Moskva. As has been stated earlier the thing with insurance is that its better to have it and not need it rather than the other way round!. A fact not lost on the Russians.

The problem with the 4-tube submarine option is, as mentioned earlier, that either the tubes must be big enough to take Trident D5 and, therefore, be too big for the current-build Astute hull….OR we need to develop a new missile that fits into the smaller tubes that would fit the basic SSN hull dimensions. One way we need a new submarine design and the other we need a new missile. Either way we dont save money to alleviate the issues in our conventional forces….IF we were to accept your rather optimistic notion that savings from the deterrent would be funneled back into defence.

Hard to see the significant benefit in selecting CASD with a 4-tube Trident boat over CASD with an 8-tube Trident boat?.

The Russians can do whatever they like on their own territory. They are not the USSR, the Cold War finished 20 years ago, and they do not pose an existential threat to the UK. As for CASD, we really need to get beyond this concept, it belongs in the past, along with the four minute warning. When the facts change, you really ought to change your opinions.