Pacifico
Ex Member
Anti-air missiles.
Faster jets
Bigger bombs
So bigger bombs are compensated for by faster jets allowing more distance to be put between them.
And if anti-air missiles were 100% effective nobody would have an air force.
Anti-air missiles.
Faster jets
Bigger bombs
And all it takes is one missile and that aircraft is gone. Lessons were learned after the Falklands. We didn't have AEW, CIWS, and the only decent anti aircraft missile turned out to be Sea Wolf. Rapier and Sea Dart both had "issues." Since then the issues were addressed and we haven't had much of a significant threat for the last four decades.
We are leaving the EU. Consider politics. We would be saying to the US we want to end our partnership, funding, expertise on one of the most important projects we both share, to come up with something new, entirely from scratch and who we might even ask for help with from France as they are the most recent country to do it.
Snub the US and ask for help from France? Now?
You seem to be talking just about the UK and us going it alone.So bigger bombs are compensated for by faster jets allowing more distance to be put between them.
And if anti-air missiles were 100% effective nobody would have an air force.
See report above. Or the BBC link above. Trident keeps coming out as actually being cheapest and that's with people who do this for a living.Which is precisely why we dont need a cold war nuclear deterrent. The threat has changed and we need to change our spending priorities to match that threat.
So we replace something we are in partnership with, with something we aren't? That's also different technology. All the scientists skilled at rocket science replaced by those who would need to work on an cruise system. And that's if the businesses involved would be interested in a partnership.Why would we need to be in partnership with the French? - we could share the development costs (or even buy off the shelf) the next generation LRSO missile that is being developed to replace the AGM-86.
See report above. Or the BBC link above. Trident keeps coming out as actually being cheapest and that's with people who do this for a living.
So we replace something we are in partnership with, with something we aren't? That's also different technology. All the scientists skilled at rocket science replaced by those who would need to work on an cruise system. And that's if the businesses involved would be interested in a partnership.
Because the aim of the nukes is to be a deterrent. If you are actually using them that's failed. So you need a credible deterrence.No it is not. The report assumed that you would be replacing Trident with an equivalent weapons system, that is why they factored in having 35 JSF on permanent nuclear alert.
There's also an issue that a couple of the new subs are part built. Cancel them and a lot of people will be out of work. Paying highly skilled people to be on the dole is expensive and politically unpopular. This isn't like shopping for a product and being able to just swap. You have political implications with the US, at home, knowledge, skills, all involved in the decision.You cant keep building nuclear submarines if the threat is not there just to give the Navy something to play with.