Britain likely base for son of Star Wars

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Taz_786, Mar 24, 2006.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Ah!

    Now if our Govt had any balls it could make this deal dependant on full transfer of JSF technology...although im not holding my breath.
  2. Only if they sell BAe to Lockheed Martin ... the JSF thing is as much about commercial rivarly between L-M and BAe mostly? I mean the yanks sell us SLBM's and nuclear device designs, so doubt their govt is worried we'd pass on need-to-know tech info to others.
  3. this is the biggest white elephant in years if our goverment had any balls they tell the spamsto **** off with this
  4. This isn't new. We had always been tipped to hold the missiles, in that place in Yorkshire. That way they can intercept anything aimed at the Yanks Eastern Sea Board.

    The big debate was which country would hold the missiles to defend the Western states.
  5. RAF Fylindales by any chance?
    Feckin hope not it'll give all those CND types that camp outside the gates the perfect opportunity to say "Told you so". :evil:
  6. Tell them to **** off and take the menwith spy base with it .If they cant resist using it to gain commercial advantage .I dont see any
    reason why should we harbour missles that put as at risk for no advantage to us .Letting the yanks think they can fire missles and be safe from retalation just seems a bad idea.
  7. Whats the big deal. Places like RAF Menwith hill but to name a few hold equipment there that could fry any electrical applience from miles away!!. The Yanks have been there for years. I bet there has been plans already to host sites around the country for such missiles.
  8. GCHQ also use Menwith hill to pool information with the NSA who run the establishment, to I dont think they would close that down in a hurry.
  9. Well they could at least stop using it for commercial advantage against uk intrests .
  10. anyone think goving son of george the ability to lob nukes at russia or china or anywhere else with an odds on chance anything lobbed back canbe intercepted is seriously bad idea :(
  11. Nope, I think it's a bloody damned good idea for the US to have the ability to intercept inbound nuclear warheads and frankly find all the hoohah that it's raised mind boggling.

    It's a defensive system, same has having Patriot, Hawk or Bloodhound Mk2 (not that we have them anymore) installations, did people complain about those as well ?

    Only thing the HMG should be doing is leveraging a possible UK interceptor base against deals that would benefit the UK, such as putting pressure on L-M to share the FCS software with BAe, gaurentees that the UK would also be able to use the interceptors to defend ourselves etc etc etc. A UK JSF production line for British and European JSF orders would be excellent :)

    A succesful ABM system makes nuclear strikes *less* likely, same as air defence systems such as the patriot/hawk ... why the anti's think this is a bad idea I have no clue, the only valid objections are purely technical, eg can it be done , I personally believe it can be.
  12. Even the fact that we're effectively getting an ABM system for free makes it worth having. Anything extra we can chisel out would be a bonus.

    Not only that, it makes an accidental nuclear war massively less likely. Right now, if an ICBM were launced by accident at the US or Russia, the logic is such that it is almost impossible not to launch your missiles in retaliation. If you are able to shoot down a single incoming missile, that gives you time to talk and find out that it was actually an accident. That is enough to prevent a nuclear war.
    The technical issues are pretty easy. The US actually solved the problem of scoring direct hits on an inbound RV during the early 1960s with the Nike-Zeus missile. It was cancelled and the results classified by Robert S. McNamara to reduce objections to the concept of MAD - itself designed as a cost saving exercise as the cheapest way they could get a nuclear deterrent. The technical side is actually relatively easy because RVs come in on a ballistic arc - track them for a few seconds after their engines burn out and you know exactly where they will be at all points in the future. After that it's only a matter of building a big enough firework.

    Incidentally, I always find it highly amusing that the people who think that the US is inherently evil for building this system never mention that the Russians have had a very similar system around Moscow for the best part of 40 years now.
  13. I recall reading that the attacking ICBM can spew a lot of metallized mylar balloons which simulate the radar return of an authentic threat. This supposedly can swamp the defender at a modest cost to the attacker.

    Also, that modern re-entry vehicles include multiple, independently targeted re-entry vehicles.

    If memory serves correctly, Mr. Putin was recently boasting of some sort of big breakthrough in this field.

    I've read that the surest, easiest way to kill the attacker's ICBM is with a "booster phase" interception, when the thing is still going up, with first stage engine burning.

    USA is working on some type of chemical laser, carried in the fuselage of a cargo jet, as a means of achieving booster phase interception.
  14. It would have 20-30 years ago, but nowadays computers are fast enough to filter them out. They don't have quite the same radar return and there is enough atmosphere about up there that they don't have the same ballistic performance anyway.
    Incidentally, it appears that the current plan is to simply blast all the decoys out of the way (bursting the balloons) and kill whatever is left. Since the decoys will have effectively zero cross-range manouverability, this isn't all that hard. I've been told (although I'm not entirely sure if the guy was joking) that the material of choice for bursting them is grape flavour jelly. Turns to sharp crystals under vacuum and the grape flavour stuff is effectively invisible.

    Yep, that's why this system is no threat at all to the Russians and won't be any threat to the Chinese when they finish modernising their arsenal in the next couple of years. However, that isn't the whole story. Back before the Russians deployed their ABM/SAM system the British nuclear weapons (at that time delivered by the V-bombers) were targetted on about 100 or so different places in Russia. The defences have cut that down so that nowadays we can take out Moscow and everything in it with certainty, but have no weapons left over for anything else. It's a wierd fact but ABM systems seem to be best at protecting things they don't directly cover.
    If the US was serious about a defensive system however they'd just put nuclear warheads in their interceptor missiles. MIRVs don't actually have very much cross-range ability so a big enough explosion going off in the centre of the group of MIRVs would destroy all of them. Fallout is actually a pretty minor problem if the explosion is at high enough altitude, and "EMP" really isn't the danger it is claimed to be. However, the US doesn't need to do so and hence isn't.

    From memory all he was boasting of was the ability of Russian RVs to manouver on the way into a target. That's nothing new - the Chevaline upgrade to the UK Polaris missiles was able to do something similar 20 years or so ago. Because of the extremely high speeds involved their manouverability is very limited and this will at best cut down the efficiency of defences - it won't defeat them completely.

    Yep. The problem with that is that whatever you hit the missile with has to be pretty close to the launcher. The airbourne laser has to be within something like 100 miles (depends on weather) and the various missile options have to be even closer. Say Iran decides to kick off at some point in the future - how confident would you be driving a Boeing 747 around over Iranian territory in case they launch? When it works it's great, but it isn't always possible.
    On a side note, the other reason boost phase interception is so desirable is that whatever is in the missile will fall on the launching country rather than you. A nuclear device will no doubt be smashed up in the shoot-down, but if it's loaded with something like Smallpox or Sarin that's a very different matter.
  15. A quick glance at would seem to indicate that there are different types of missiles for defeating ICBMs at the various different phases of flight. You can bet good money that the interceptors based in the UK will be designed to defeat in-coming nukes in their mid-course phase, not the terminal phase, and would therefore be naff all use for defending the UK. Of course, they would also make us a priority target in the event of a nuclear attack on the US. I'm glad that I don't live in Yorkshire.