Which ‘wrong way’ would that be?

You’re right, of course, about the real deterrence being U.S. provided. That was a matter of sheer numbers.

As far as the U.K. and France were concerned, the word was strangely applied from start to finish. The scenario being contemplated was one in which 1. the Soviets launched a ‘conventional’ invasion of Western Europe 2. Nato land forces surrendering or being overwhelmed and 3. the U.S. president then not having the gonads to threaten the nuclear (NOT pronounced noo-kew-lurr, thanks) option.

We would then have had the option to threaten a nuclear response of our own… without any word of demur from a U.S. which feared, quite rightly, escalation to global level… as if!

So far from being a ‘deterrent’ to any nuclear attack by the Soviets, it was an undeclared first use policy, designed to offer a cheaper option to that of maintaining massively greater conventional forces. ERWs (neutron bombs) and SRBMs then made their appearance and rendered the whole scenario a laughing stock.

There were two seperate Scenarios as far as Nato/UK was concerned.

1) Tripwire, As soon as Russian forces cross the Elbe the war becomes a Nuclear affair and everyone gets torched, this soon gave way to……

2)Escalated response, the idea being that only Germany gets nuked as everyone gets together and talks about their issues. You may be able to guess that I have little regard for that one.

When you take into account the Soviet belief that Nukes should be used in the same way as conventional ones it soon becomes apparent that any war would have been nuclear very rapidly. There was no concept of limited war between western European countries and the Soviet Union.

At the end of the day, if the Soviets didn’t know that and it deterred them, then it was doing its job. i.e. Deterring. Soviets never really thought much of the British or French nukes, not with number of US weapons behind them. In fact there was a lot of Spin at the time in the capabilities of British weapons in public at least. H-Bombs that were really boosted A-bombs and alike.

Dont take this the wrong way or anything but I think the real deterring was done by the US. Sure the UK played its part but until the arrival Polaris the UK lacked a credible nuclear capability. Partly though economics and partly through geography.

I thought that was just an option, & unlikely to be exercised unless there’s a major delay to the F-35?

As far as I know the Australians are doing very well at the moment, I read a few months back that the Government there had been able to cut taxes, increase spending and still end up with a surplus!:eek:

Here’s a picture with both Gyrons fiited.
Am I the only one here who thinks the Sperrin looks like it should be a flying boat? Must be a Shorts thing!

I always thought that the Sperrin would have looked really cool with all four Avons replaced by Gyrons. Ok so it would be completely impractical and full thrust on all four may have torn it to pieces but it would have looked cool and thats what counts!:diablo:

The only aircraft the Gyron flew in was the Short Sperrin, first with one and then two.

The Bristol 188 was also a miracle of construction. I’m fairly confident Bristol invented submerged-arc welding to be able to build it.

You beat me to it! I was about to say that the Sperrin was the test bed. There is certainly no doubting that the 188 was an engineering marvel but the engine choice was dire. It wasnt that the Gyron Junior was a bad engine it was just the wrong engine for the job, same with Buc.

Don’t forget the Gyron was a totaly different engine from the Gyron Junior, which was used in Buccs.

The only aircraft it flew in was the mighty Bristol 188, the pilot of which was voted the most likely to eject from his aircraft!

The only thing mighty about the 188 was its speed, but for its intended role it was useless and the Gyron Junior was largely to blame. The type (after the Avro-730 was cancelled anyway) was intended to test Stainless steel as a materiel for use under sustained high speed flight conditions. The fuel ineficiency of the Gyron Junior meant that the 188 ran out of fuel before the airframe reached the temperature that the research required!

It was the first British engine cleared for use at Mach 2 I believe, but was too big to be practical. It was scaled down to 45% to create the Gyron Junior which was used in the Buccaneer S.1.

And it made the Bristol 188 a complete waste of space.;) It would also have powered the SR.177.