Offshore Patrol Vessels

Errrrr - France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands and Turkey are all able to deploy tactical nuclear weapons from Typhoon-sized aircraft. Likewise Russia, India, Israel, Pakistan and China.
The UK is in fact the only nuclear power to pursue a purely-strategic nuclear policy.
Those nations only hold or possibly held - because I wouldn't be surprised to see it fall by the wayside - are there even US stocks of ukes in Europe anymlore) that ability because its pretty much forced on them as a NATO obligation -.And that was only so that everybody was involved in instant sunshine whether they owned nuclear weapons or not**.
It plays fast and loose with the NPT very much a spirit v letter and semantics argument - but lets be honest if were at the point the US is fitting its
bombs to German aircraft the NPT is not really a concern.

**Someone else can point out how this is somewhat at odds with the SNPs anti nuke but we will be in NATO stance


Excluding France - France has gone its own way for its own reasons - but I note Rafele cannot carry ASMP hence the retention of the Nuclear Mirages - I wouldn't be surprised to see both retired together
 
But it couldn't when the decision was made - and I doubt funding would be forthcoming if they asked
The original RN plan was for Standard / Mk 41 not Aster / Sylver
Agreeing to go with Aster/ Sylver was a political choice to try and hold the Horizon programme together.
Once Horizon crashed and burned, we should have gone back to our baseline preferred option.
Funding wasn’t an issue, SM / Mk41 is cheaper, hence the perversity of sticking with the political fudge once we left Hotizon.
It was a bad choice, We’re now reliant on a small French led programme and not one from a big supplier with deep pockets and a large global order book.

Back to the right path with T26 though.
 
Last edited:
Those nations only hold or possibly held - because I wouldn't be surprised to see it fall by the wayside - are there even US stocks of ukes in Europe anymlore) that ability because its pretty much forced on them as a NATO obligation -.And that was only so that everybody was involved in instant sunshine whether they owned nuclear weapons or not**.
It plays fast and loose with the NPT very much a spirit v letter and semantics argument - but lets be honest if were at the point the US is fitting its
bombs to German aircraft the NPT is not really a concern.

**Someone else can point out how this is somewhat at odds with the SNPs anti nuke but we will be in NATO stance


Excluding France - France has gone its own way for its own reasons - but I note Rafele cannot carry ASMP hence the retention of the Nuclear Mirages - I wouldn't be surprised to see both retired together
And the US, Israel, Pakistan, India, Russia and China? The UK is the exception here.
 

jrwlynch

LE
Book Reviewer
Errrrr - France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands and Turkey are all able to deploy tactical nuclear weapons from Typhoon-sized aircraft. Likewise Russia, India, Israel, Pakistan and China.
The UK is in fact the only nuclear power to pursue a purely-strategic nuclear policy.
I'll state with fairly complete confidence that the process to qualify whatever the modern-day version of the Bomb, Medium Case, 600lb 'Special' would be for use on Typhoon, would be complete by the time said weapons had been developed and were available for use.

Typhoon can't drop the tactical nuclear weapons we haven't owned or operated for decades. Shock! Horror! Next up, I'm not qualified to drive the steam locomotives that aren't used on the UK's railway network. The Royal Navy hasn't got sailors qualified to man battleship fire-control systems, gun turrets and magazines. We have limited numbers of soldiers in the Army who are competent longbowmen and the standard of pike drill is just awful. And so it goes...

Various nations (other than France) being "able to deploy tactical nuclear weapons" from aircraft is one of those notional capabilities I'd be interested to know well exercised and practices it is - shades of "all Tornado aircraft can refuel in mid-air", which was technically true but only one of eight Italian Tornado IDS actually managed it during a night mission during Granby... theoretical hardware doesn't translate to actual capability.
 
@jrwlynch
And how confident are you that it’s not actual capability? And the US, France, China, India, Pakistan, Israel and Russia aren’t using battleships or longbows or pikes are they? They all do however use tactical nukes.
That the UK chose to get out of that game does not automatically mean it was the right thing to do does it?
 
This is now major thread drift so we should probably have this discussion elsewhere?
Thanks but no thanks; your Wikipedia-warrior knowledge is not worth arguing against despite further factual errors in that last post.

Regards,
MM
 

jrwlynch

LE
Book Reviewer
@jrwlynch
And how confident are you that it’s not actual capability? And the US, France, China, India, Pakistan, Israel and Russia aren’t using battleships or longbows or pikes are they? They all do however use tactical nukes.
That the UK chose to get out of that game does not automatically mean it was the right thing to do does it?
They "are all using tactical nukes" - are they? Really? Because I'd be pretty sure that nuclear weapons are, pretty much everywhere, under very tight central control, and I doubt there's a tactical commander around in any of those nations who has a warhead or six at their disposal, able to use it when they consider appropriate (which is what makes it a tactical, not strategic, weapon - textbook example is a warship with NDB on board which is allowed to use them when the CO deems necessary)

Given the instability and coup-prone nation of Pakistan, to say nothing of their worryingly close association with some troubling organisations, you're seriously claiming that subordinate commanders get given nuclear warheads, the means to deliver them, with a cheery "now don't go Crazy Eddie over India, or selling these to Al-Qaeda, or we'll be terribly disappointed!"
 

jrwlynch

LE
Book Reviewer
Argument lost so resort to pedantry. :roll:
Well, opinions are like certain fundamental orifices, but facts are often difficult and uncompromising... which is why so many Interweb arguments devolve into "but I read this on Wikipedia, and when I played the Typoohn fitter-bummer in Jane's World of Thundering Warplanes its canon had 0.86 DPS less tahn Su-97 Fishface sekrit stelth fitter, so I am rite and yuo aer wrong"

From where I've been watching, your argument is "if we can't do everything the US do we are full of lose and fail", ignoring the trivial details that the US have rather different taskings and priorities to us, and that their budget is slightly more generously proportioned than ours.
 
Well, opinions are like certain fundamental orifices, but facts are often difficult and uncompromising... which is why so many Interweb arguments devolve into "but I read this on Wikipedia, and when I played the Typoohn fitter-bummer in Jane's World of Thundering Warplanes its canon had 0.86 DPS less tahn Su-97 Fishface sekrit stelth fitter, so I am rite and yuo aer wrong"

From where I've been watching, your argument is "if we can't do everything the US do we are full of lose and fail", ignoring the trivial details that the US have rather different taskings and priorities to us, and that their budget is slightly more generously proportioned than ours.
I see. Well if it’s easier to argue against things I haven’t actually said then go ahead.
 

jrwlynch

LE
Book Reviewer
I see. Well if it’s easier to argue against things I haven’t actually said then go ahead.
You do realise that you've been making statements that are simply incorrect, and seem unaware of it? Which may be why you don't realise what you're saying sometimes?

For instance, when @Magic_Mushroom was explaining F-15E capabilities to you, your response was "So there's no such thing as the Strike Eagle?" This may strike you as clever, but actually it just makes you look confused and ill-informed.

And again, if you're seriously claiming that a deployed Pakistani squadron commander could authorise nuclear delivery, I'd like some evidence that this is true, rather than a "dumb" because you've been caught babbling bollocks. Likewise, exactly when was the last time the Turks conducted a practice Elephant Walk, and what's the notice to move on NATO nuclear weapons for Turkish aircraft to deliver?

You seem unaware that one reason we claim less capability... is because we claim what we can do, not what's in dusty decades-old policy documents or marketing brochures.
 
You do realise that you've been making statements that are simply incorrect, and seem unaware of it? Which may be why you don't realise what you're saying sometimes?

For instance, when @Magic_Mushroom was explaining F-15E capabilities to you, your response was "So there's no such thing as the Strike Eagle?" This may strike you as clever, but actually it just makes you look confused and ill-informed.
Actually my error was with the nomenclature, which MM decided to use to dismiss my point by going haha! What does this Civvy know, he’s talking about a “jet”/“plane” not in service!”

I don’t pretend to have all the facts, or to always use the ‘correct’ terms, but I know my argument, and I try and support it with examples. I also know quite well when someone isn’t engaging in the point and trying to distract.
Case in point: to support my argument I say Typhoons compared to the F-15 and Su-27 are cleared for less types of ordnance, have less payload and have less range.
MM:
- goes on about how great Typhoon is an it’s performance as a fighter (not my point)
-takes issue with the use of the term “light jet”
-talks about its ability to super cruise (not my point)
-talks about the USAF’s envy of Typhoon (not my point)
-says I am demeaning Typhoon (I never made any reference to the performance of the aircraft

None of this relates to the three points I actually made to support my argument and only later did he correct me on one of them (the range of the Typhoon vs the F-15, while ignoring the greater range of the Sukhois). He then calls my a Wikipedia warrior and accuses me of playing top trumps. Again none of this has anything to do with my actual arguments.

I regularly discuss contentious issues with people (both in cases when I’m an expert and in cases when I’m not). It’s usually pretty easy to tell when someone stops engaging in honest debate on an issue, regardless of the facts. MM usually argues his points quite well so why this is happening today I have no idea.
 
Last edited:
And again, if you're seriously claiming that a deployed Pakistani squadron commander could authorise nuclear delivery, I'd like some evidence that this is true, rather than a "dumb" because you've been caught babbling bollocks. Likewise, exactly when was the last time the Turks conducted a practice Elephant Walk, and what's the notice to move on NATO nuclear weapons for Turkish aircraft to deliver?

You seem unaware that one reason we claim less capability... is because we claim what we can do, not what's in dusty decades-old policy documents or marketing brochures.
Sorry but where did I say that a “Pakistan squadron commander could authorise nuclear delivery”?

I said that the UK doesn’t operate tactical nukes anymore but other countries listed do. Is my statement wrong? If so, what was wrong about it? No need to invent things I haven’t actually said!
 

jrwlynch

LE
Book Reviewer
Actually my error was with the nomenclature, which MM decided to use to dismiss my point by going haha! What does this Civvy know, he’s talking about a “jet”/“plane” not in service!”

I don’t pretend to have all the facts, or to always use the ‘correct’ terms, but I know my argument, and I try and support it with examples. I also know quite well when someone isn’t engaging in the point and trying to distract.
Case in point: to support my argument I say Typhoons compared to the F-15 and Su-27 are cleared for less types of ordnance, have less payload and have less range.
MM:
- goes on about how great Typhoon is an it’s performance as a fighter (not my point)
-takes issue with the use of the term “light jet”
-talks about its ability to super cruise (not my point)
-talks about the USAF’s envy of Typhoon (not my point)
-says I am demeaning Typhoon (I never made any reference to the performance of the aircraft

None of this relates to the three points I actually made to support my argument and only later did he correct me on one of them (the range of the Typhoon vs the F-15, while ignoring the greater range of the Sukhois). He then calls my a Wikipedia warrior and accuses me of playing top trumps. Again none of this has anything to do with my actual arguments.

I regularly discuss contentious issues with people (both in cases when I’m an expert and in cases when I’m not). It’s usually pretty easy to tell when someone stops engaging in honest debate on an issue, regardless of the facts. MM usually argues his points quite well so why this is happening today I have no idea.
Well, you did make much of how a never-produced prototype was so amazing, then got all snotty at having your error pointed out.

Then you claimed that Typhoon has "less range" than the F-15E despite being able to fly further, faster (and at higher altitude) - most people consider "flying further" to be indicative of longer, not shorter, range, but evidently you run under different rules.

Typhoon is cleared for fewer weapons? Well, it's cleared for what we've found it needs, and as we add more armament it'll carry it. F-15E is cleared for a long laundry list of armaments, many of them long obsolete: we could, for instance, pay to qualify Typhoon to carry and drop CBU-58 (which F-15E can) except for a few petty details:-
  • We've never owned or used that weapon
  • We've forsworn the use of Cluster Bomb Units by international treaty thanks to Saint Diana
  • The weapon's been out of service for decades and none exist in an airworthy state
But apart from all that, obviously the RAF are idiots for not randomly picking weapons to hang on Typhoon.

I'd rather that ALARM hadn't been retired early, and its successor cancelled, but there was an urgent need for funds for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and "expert judgement" was vocal that counterinsurgency in hot sandy places was all the British military would ever do again, so there was no possible need for anti-radar missiles compared to all the UORs coming out of TELIC and HERRICK. Likewise, quite a few other capabilities that were delayed, gapped or just left to die. But, that was high-level political decision making, not military choice.

Your argument as presented keeps coming down to "we aren't as puissant as the US so we're totally rubbish". If that's not what you mean to say, perhaps the problem is with the transmitter rather than the receiver?
 

jrwlynch

LE
Book Reviewer
Sorry but where did I say that a “Pakistan squadron commander could authorise nuclear delivery”?

I said that the UK doesn’t operate tactical nukes anymore but other countries listed do. Is my statement wrong? If so, what was wrong about it? No need to invent things I haven’t actually said!
Tactical nuclear weapons are tactical - they're devolved to local commanders to use in accordance with the tactical situation and are not under central control. For instance, back in the day a B-52 would carry Hound Dog or later ALCM for its planned strategic targets, and probably wouldn't be able to choose targets for them - but would have some AGM-69 SRAM tactical weapons that they had some control over selecting targets for (which SAM sites were still live, and weren't already glowing craters?)

If a Pakistani squadron or wing commander has to phone Karachi to explain his plan and get the release codes before launching his mission, his weapons are strategic. If he's able to decide when, where and how to use them without further authorisation, they're tactical.

If Pakistan doesn't devolve weapons and their control down to local commanders then they don't have "tactical nuclear weapons", in the same way that France currently considers its entire stockpile to be "strategic" because nobody is getting gifted a French bucket of instant sunshine without the Elysee saying "oui".

Doesn't matter what size they are or how they're delivered - "tactical" nuclear weapons refer to control and authorisation. A WE177 could be either strategic or tactical, back in the day, depending completely on where, when and how it was to be used.

This is why you're saying things you don't really understand, then acting all surprised when it's pointed out to you.
 
Tactical nuclear weapons are tactical - they're devolved to local commanders to use in accordance with the tactical situation and are not under central control. For instance, back in the day a B-52 would carry Hound Dog or later ALCM for its planned strategic targets, and probably wouldn't be able to choose targets for them - but would have some AGM-69 SRAM tactical weapons that they had some control over selecting targets for (which SAM sites were still live, and weren't already glowing craters?)

If a Pakistani squadron or wing commander has to phone Karachi to explain his plan and get the release codes before launching his mission, his weapons are strategic. If he's able to decide when, where and how to use them without further authorisation, they're tactical.

If Pakistan doesn't devolve weapons and their control down to local commanders then they don't have "tactical nuclear weapons", in the same way that France currently considers its entire stockpile to be "strategic" because nobody is getting gifted a French bucket of instant sunshine without the Elysee saying "oui".

Doesn't matter what size they are or how they're delivered - "tactical" nuclear weapons refer to control and authorisation. A WE177 could be either strategic or tactical, back in the day, depending completely on where, when and how it was to be used.

This is why you're saying things you don't really understand, then acting all surprised when it's pointed out to you.
I get your point now. But the question is, how sure are you of Pakistani nuclear doctrine to categorically state that all their stockpiles are strategic? Public sources say that they are mixed and common sense indicates that weapon yield and launch platform are HUGE indicators of whether its strategic or tactical.
Surely A 10 megaton warhead on an ICBM which will be detected once launched and likely trigger a counter strike can only be strategic. Especially when it’s blast will kill both the enemy and your troops.
 

Similar threads


Top