Jump to content

Lakenheath.


Paul J
 Share

Recommended Posts

I see that a certain 'group' of people are active at the base again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They're convinced US is planning on storing a supply of free fall nuclear bombs like those stashed at various airbases in Europe including Germany. A supply was at Lakenheath and supposedly removed in 2004 I think? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if the RAF regrets to have retired all W.177... (I assume they are "really" decommissioned, not stored only...)

only the French have their own tactical capability left in Europe.....apart from the big neighbor in the East,,,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, exdraken said:

I wonder if the RAF regrets to have retired all W.177... (I assume they are "really" decommissioned, not stored only...)

only the French have their own tactical capability left in Europe.....apart from the big neighbor in the East,,,

Regret is a bit of a weird word to use dont think anyone misses having Nuclear weapons unless youre a submariner on bombers ( V boats)🤔 stinky money rich types

Btw before some starts ....in my youth I was a bombhead on the very weapon WE 177 sticking em on FRS1s

Edited by junglierating
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There can surely be no regrets at reducing the number of these awful weapons. Their only arguable use is a deterrent, if that fails they’ve failed. Tactical ones are no use for anything, all they would do is cause escalation, then everyone would die. Not just the idiot politicians and aggressive nations but your children, parents, your mates, everyone you know, either instantly or slowly and painfully while losing their skin like a peeled onion. It’s too awful to contemplate and these weapons must never, ever be used, at any cost. 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are of course all right regarding the effects and better no use of those weapons...

But that is not how armed forces of the world are thinking ... 😞

There is a reason why NATO has a sizable stockpile of B-61s in Europe, and why countries like Germany, Italy, Belgium,  Netherlands.... are providing launch aircraft...currently F-16s and Tornados,  soon F-35s...

 

Edit: by the way, would the B model be B-61 capable? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lord Riot said:

children, parents, your mates, everyone you know, either instantly or slowly and painfully while losing their skin like a peeled onion.

Yeh, but is there any actual "downside" to their use....?

 

I'm sorry, that was me being immature, as usual. All joking aside, the use of atomic weapons is almost too horrible to contemplate. I have always wondered why the superpowers feel it is necessary to possess enough nukes to cause global annihilation ten times over? Isn't doing the job once enough for them? 

 

It's part of our ridiculous, upside-down, illogical world, unfortunately. 

 

Cheers.

 

Chris.  

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/24/2022 at 5:16 PM, spruecutter96 said:

. I have always wondered why the superpowers feel it is necessary to possess enough nukes to cause global annihilation ten times over?

 

That's very easy to answer. It's possible that an enemy might be able to block some of them and that some more would misfire. Would Shane go to a gunfight with only one bullet in his revolver?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Slater said:

Didn't Russia use nuclear devices in some of their civil engineering projects back in the 1950's/1960's? 

 

I remember something about that. Excavating caves for reservoirs or something with underground explosions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/25/2022 at 10:43 PM, Bertie Psmith said:

 

That's very easy to answer. It's possible that an enemy might be able to block some of them and that some more would misfire. Would Shane go to a gunfight with only one bullet in his revolver?

I read a very interesting magazine article not so long ago in which it was stated that if it had ever come to Blue Steel being used in anger only 40% of them were expected to be viable when the launch point was reached. That could hardly have been great for the morale of Vulcan and Victor crews, if they were aware of it. If you ever have to fly the ultimate mission that all your training's geared towards there's a 60% chance that if you successfully penetrate Soviet defences, manage to get to within 100 miles of your target (the maximum range that Blue Steel was capable of) and press the red button, your one and only weapon will just go 'phut'. Nothing left to do but shrug and head back home, which wouldn't be there any more - unless contemporary Soviet nuclear warhead delivery systems were equally naff, of course. Also, a proportion of the 40% was expected to be neutralised by the defences after launch or succumb to technical failure before reaching the target.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, AWFK10 said:

I read a very interesting magazine article not so long ago in which it was stated that if it had ever come to Blue Steel being used in anger only 40% of them were expected to be viable when the launch point was reached. That could hardly have been great for the morale of Vulcan and Victor crews, if they were aware of it. If you ever have to fly the ultimate mission that all your training's geared towards there's a 60% chance that if you successfully penetrate Soviet defences, manage to get to within 100 miles of your target (the maximum range that Blue Steel was capable of) and press the red button, your one and only weapon will just go 'phut'. Nothing left to do but shrug and head back home, which wouldn't be there any more - unless contemporary Soviet nuclear warhead delivery systems were equally naff, of course. Also, a proportion of the 40% was expected to be neutralised by the defences after launch or succumb to technical failure before reaching the target.

 

My Grandfather worked on Blue Steel in the 60s - I remember he hated all the politics that surrounded its development (a la TSR2).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AWFK10 said:

only 40% of them were expected to be viable when the launch point was reached.

Look at curtent Russian missile failure rate...

I can't imagine any complex system back then being much better... 

Guess that's why quantity was the only thing that had a certain quality...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the flip side, weapon systems such as JDAM and Paveway have been used so extensively over the past decades that any issues have long since been sorted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Slater said:

On the flip side, weapon systems such as JDAM and Paveway have been used so extensively over the past decades that any issues have long since been sorted.

Technically for sure, but I guess operationally there is still a big difference If you fight enemies that put lots of pressure on you or If you are loitering above at rel.safety...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any talk of nuclear weapons gives me the jitters and a cold trickle runs down my back :(. What a world we live in when we maintain such things. I know it is tit for tat but it’s very chilling :(. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, RidgeRunner said:

Any talk of nuclear weapons gives me the jitters and a cold trickle runs down my back :(. What a world we live in when we maintain such things. I know it is tit for tat but it’s very chilling :(. 

Mankind is like that it seems...they are out there now!... only something that neutralizes those weapons or their effect would make them obsolete... though this might be something even more jitter causing I fear... :(

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No nuclear armed country has ever been invaded. 

 

(I phrased that historical observation very carefully to avoid being present tense political)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, Bertie Psmith said:

No nuclear armed country has ever been invaded. 

 

(I phrased that historical observation very carefully to avoid being present tense political)

The UK is nuclear armed and Argentina Invaded the Falklands way back in 82......

Edited by tweeky
typo
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, tweeky said:

The UK is nuclear armed and Argentina Invaded the Falklands wat back in 82......

 

You got me. 🤣

 

Iceland invaded the fishing grounds too. 

 

But you know what I really meant by invasion - all out warfare.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Like it or not the concept of MAD has in reality prevented a number of major wars since WW2. Not all wars but most that did break out are proxy wars because of the fear of escalation. Current events prove that. 

 

This lesson is not lost on the so called 'rogue' states. Who know having  nukes makes them safe from attack. 

 

They may make us uncomfortable but nukes have prevented significant wars. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...