Trident or Aircraft Carriers or JSF

Foxtrot26 said:
As for trident bin it and adapt what we have already ie tomahawk system or maybe a couple of stealth bombers from the yanks surely going to bemcheapermeasiermand amdamn site quicker into service
Click to expand...

Is it not true that the nuclear version of tomahawk has been withdrawn from US service as the result of a treaty with the Russians? Either way we would have to develop our own warhead if we want our nuclear deterent to remain independant of the US which would cost a fortune.

Plane launched missiles are not a good idea for the UK's strategic deterenent as our island is too small and we would no longer be in a postion to threaten our enemies with MAD. Besides which the US would not sell US would not sell us stealth bombers we maybe one of their strongest allies but certain technology is not for export!
 
Foxtrot26 said:
As for trident bin it and adapt what we have already ie tomahawk system or maybe a couple of stealth bombers from the yanks surely going to bemcheapermeasiermand amdamn site quicker into service
Click to expand...

You can't use a tomahawk as a strategic nuclear weapon.
 
Was a massive fan of the F-35 but 10 years later all i see is articles about micro damage to the flight deck (heat exhaust) & the cost alone.

We need to scrap the F-35 & see what can be done with the Typhoon, i.e fit thrust vectoring for better short take off.
 
a1ex2001 said:
Is it not true that the nuclear version of tomahawk has been withdrawn from US service as the result of a treaty with the Russians? Either way we would have to develop our own warhead if we want our nuclear deterent to remain independant of the US which would cost a fortune.

Plane launched missiles are not a good idea for the UK's strategic deterenent as our island is too small and we would no longer be in a postion to threaten our enemies with MAD. Besides which the US would not sell US would not sell us stealth bombers we maybe one of their strongest allies but certain technology is not for export!
Click to expand...

We develop and build the Trident system warheads ourselves anyway, at AWE Aldermaston. The missiles are US built, the warheads are UK built (heavily based on US designs, to fit the Trident missiles, but UK designed and built.
 
Trident but if we want to remain a naval power we need the carriers as well. We can't let our navy degrade further as they have been in the past 13+ years.
 
Over Clocker said:
I think the UK also needs to take a deep hard look into why some of the big capital projects cost SO much more than they should.

We have the 3rd biggest defence expenditure in the world behind the USA and China, but does our hardware and troop numbers tally up with all of that spending?
Click to expand...

Which is frankly ridiculous and why a welcome this government's planned reduction by 10-20%. We should wind our necks back in and transition to a far smaller military. Scrapping trident is a useful start.
 
Over Clocker said:
We develop and build the Trident system warheads ourselves anyway, at AWE Aldermaston. The missiles are US built, the warheads are UK built (heavily based on US designs, to fit the Trident missiles, but UK designed and built.
Click to expand...

I know that, its exactly what I said. Those warheads are in place and have no further development costs associated with them, were we to use Tomahawk as a nuclear weapon we would have to develop from scratch an entirely new nuclear warhead that would cost a fortune.

Ali195 said:
We need to scrap the F-35 & see what can be done with the Typhoon, i.e fit thrust vectoring for better short take off.
Click to expand...

The Typhoon will never be navalised, it would be incredibly costly and the limited multi-role capabilities make it totally the wrong option for our carrier needs.
 
Over Clocker said:
TO those saying bin Trident and use cruise missiles, or aircraft launched weapons, do some research please!

Trident missiles can travel at 13,000 mph (approx Mach 20), yes Mach twenty. This makes them pretty much impossible to shoot down. They also have a range of around 7,500 miles. Yo do the math....

Very easy to shoot a plane down. Very easy to target a surface ship. Very easy to target a land based launch system.
Click to expand...

I was going to say something along those lines.

Trident has a what 8000mile range compared to 1500 or so of the Tomahawk?

Plus as you say a cruise missile is easier to take out than ICBM warheads.
 
Last edited:
Tefal said:
we refused to pay for a catapult so no f16s etc for us :(
Click to expand...

f16 is not a carrier aircraft ;)

I think an aircraft carrier would be more usefull, and i believe that the typhoon can be adapted for aircraft carriers. trident is expensive for very little, when an ICBM can do the same cheaper. as far as JSF it's capabilities still need to be proved and the US accept money from foreign countries however want to keep it's software etc... theirs, not what i call an open and friendly partnership.
 
Last edited:
Tefal said:
You honestly think America will side with Britain if it's not in their interests,
Click to expand...

ofc they will :D remember WW1 (last 6 months of the war) or WW2 (when they got bombed by Japan amd Germany declared war on the US).

imo all they did was get rich selling weapons and supllies until they had no choice and the war dragged them in. so much for allies :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
BTW aircraft carrier = modern navy; not having an aircraft carrier is like having no navy. harrier although funky idea is completely useless plane unless you want to support beach landings, but honestly cheaper alternatives for that (limited air to air capability, sub sonic and vertical take off = no fuel to fly)

so either adapt Typhoon, or buy Rafale, all are better than f18 super hornets anyway
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom