Russian 'Nuke' Bombers Invade British Airspace - Just wanted to discuss this

[Killerkebab]

Tefal, are the subs the problem in maintaining the UK's nuclear deterrant, or is it the missiles?

 

[britboy4321]

I must admit I'd put in the spec. for the new subs

'Must be able to launch nukes all over the place for the next 100 years'

Not

'After 20 years can be for some wierd reason declared 'out of date' even though the task at hand hasn't changed one bit'.

So NO MORE we need '345 billion more please' for 'new subs that do essentially just need to do exactly the same thing, lob nukes around.

 

[Killerkebab]

I'm assuming if it is for new subs, the problem wouldn't be their ability to launch nukes, but their ability to remain hidden from various detection methods. As the rest of the world improves their detection equipment we need to improve our concealment, I think.

 

[meghatronic]

I'm assuming if it is for new subs, the problem wouldn't be their ability to launch nukes, but their ability to remain hidden from various detection methods. As the rest of the world improves their detection equipment we need to improve our concealment, I think.

Pretty much. But from what I gather it is also range and - rather importantly - crew comfort.

 

[Mart2912]

Here you go, some info on the sub:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4438392.stm

 

[qqg3]

It properly ended a long time before 1997.

It was falling apart shortly after WWI and WWII destroyed it. We are still a powerful nation, but that power is nothing compared to USA, Russia, China etc

 

[Tefal]

Tefal, are the subs the problem in maintaining the UK's nuclear deterrant, or is it the missiles?

iirc at the moment the missiles are good fow a while yet but the subs are coming close to the end might be wrong though.

I must admit I'd put in the spec. for the new subs

'Must be able to launch nukes all over the place for the next 100 years'

Not

'After 20 years can be for some wierd reason declared 'out of date' even though the task at hand hasn't changed one bit'.

So NO MORE we need '345 billion more please' for 'new subs that do essentially just need to do exactly the same thing, lob nukes around.

So you're either going to have to replace the reactors every so often and all their related parts at massive cost and very long refit time.

Or use a refillable reactor like in power station which would be much more complex and much more risky.

Then you're somehow going to have to account for every advance in sonar, radar, satellite technology, then all the technologies that don't exist/aren't feasible atm and finally the stuff no one even considered possible/based on things we haven't even discovered.


We're starting to see anti ballistic missiles taking their first few shaky steps in all likley hood in 60-70 years a trident will be as easy to shoot down as a 747.

Also at standpoint in the next 100 years you're probably going to have to replace the whole hull and super structure as it takes wear over time.


By about year 80 i doubt there would be anything original on the sub at all, it would just be an incredibly expensive restored antique.

 

[Alex_6n2]

It's is the Russian's aerospace equivalent to

 

[Doohickey]

Why did those russians come into our air space?

Because they felt like it

couldn't something like that start a war? haven't wars started in the past over smaller things then this?

To my knowledge, not as small as 'just' flying through someone's airspace and not indicating any further threat.

And howcome our jets didnt shoot em down?

World War 3

howcome in the article it says we just followed them for 4 hours?

Because the other option would be to shoot them down

Shouldnt they have just shot them down? wtf?

World War 3

and is the priminister talking about this on the news or what?

It's probably not worth talking about.

 

[Tefal]

It's is the Russian's aerospace equivalent to

I dunno while it may partly be that, i think they want to get a closer look at the typhoons in the air.

Possibly why we've only sent tornadoes to shoo them off.

 

[Rameses]

20 times since the start of 2009?

I'm sorry but next time we should have the safety off and missle lock on them, giving them instructions to leave immediately......and if not, bye bye.

Edit: I do not doubt for one moment, if this was the other way round they'd have shot down one of ours.

 

[Nix]

Lots of predictable knee-jerk responses as per-usual.

I don't want to be such a cynical misanthrope FFS, stop giving me a reason to be!

 

[Cosimo]

I don't want to be such a cynical misanthrope FFS, stop giving me a reason to be!

Go on, let yourself go, you know you want to.

 

[robinson09]

Cant quite believe some of the people saying we should just fire away and not care about the consequences.
If we blew away one of there bombers just for entering our airspace, the russians would have a field day. Only multiple failures to comply or of course any hostile action would warrant such a response.

 

[Dark88]

You're not seeing my point, err, I mean joke.

The Eurofighter was originally conceived as a fighter interceptor to defend against the cold war threat from Russia. Over the long development period, its role changed to meet whatever was going on at the time, much use of the word swing-role in budget meetings. Then we finally get them and the 1st active service they see is escorting a Bear off the north coast, after a period of no Russian probing for a long time, it's almost too perfect. Though when you think about it, the Russians just wanted to test the response time of the new craft.

A tornado intercepted it not a typhoon?

 

[Hxc]

The picture of the Typhoon and the Russian Bear aircraft it follows is still one of my favorites of all time, and I WISH that I could see a TU160 in flight, stunning, stunning planes.

 

[Tefal]

You're not seeing my point, err, I mean joke.

The Eurofighter was originally conceived as a fighter interceptor to defend against the cold war threat from Russia. Over the long development period, its role changed to meet whatever was going on at the time, much use of the word swing-role in budget meetings. Then we finally get them and the 1st active service they see is escorting a Bear off the north coast, after a period of no Russian probing for a long time, it's almost too perfect. Though when you think about it, the Russians just wanted to test the response time of the new craft.

We've only sent tornadoes against them.

 

[Hxc]

Eurofighter typhoons have been sent to intercept the turboprop bears that Russia has sent accross before.

 

[Tefal]

20 times since the start of 2009?

I'm sorry but next time we should have the safety off and missle lock on them, giving them instructions to leave immediately......and if not, bye bye.

Lets get this clear, you want to start a war with Russia?

over a tiny bit of posturing miles off the cost?

Edit: I do not doubt for one moment, if this was the other way round they'd have shot down one of ours.

No they wouldn't.


This is real life not a tom Clancy novel.

 

[Darg]

Scotch are you trying to troll here?

You want to cause a war just because they like to fly in british airspace? Sure Britain could argue that they had a legal right to shoot them down but real life isn't that black and white.