vindaloo

If funded by the lottery, would they have a thunderball?

IMO...

Regardless of the nukes etc. What we need in this country is to encourage genuine innovation. We'll never match the industrial might of larger countries and we haven't the economic clout of an empire anymore.

Maybe the UK defense industry should take a look at the Jap car industry (of 20 years ago). Also IMO, in order to get weapons developed and tested and approved quickly (and hence economically), we need testing and approval of systems in short timeframes.

J.

King RA

Love this comment on BBC News:

"Whether we need it or not is irrelevant.

There is no point in having it because nobody who gets involved in public projects is competent. 'The button' will be pressed and there will be nothing more than a solitary deafening click, followed by a submarine exploding a few miles off the Shetland Isles. Either that or the sub will be dragged along with the missile!"

mart360

we should buy it of someone else ,

sad to say, but if left to the muppets in charge now, it will cost 5 times more than the original, be a watered down varient, and obsolete in 6 months time.

at least if its a finished off the shelf item it will negate the billions wasted on quango,s commities and think tanks, just to decide its name


So youve seen it and done it, have you pissy?

dont recall pissy lewis appearing in the annals of nuke testing & development.

i think oppenheimer, would have made some reference to his wonderfull assistant, if you were so on the pulse and with it..


lets see.

christopher cockrell hovercraft

Graham Bell telephone

John Logie Baird TV

Robert Oppenheimer Atomic bomb

Henry Ford motor car

I did a wikkipedia search for P S Lewis and guess what turned up....

NADA zip. nothing..

so nothing to substantiate your claim there then

funny though my name turned up loads of stuff



Mart

Ray_li

I'm up for designing and building the complete system as a UK project

Pete you're never gonna retire I guess a large chunck of the £20b goes in your pocket

sociophobe

Nowt to do with this thread, but .................

































KILL LEWIS

(oh he doesnt have 100 rep points, how sad )

JTaylor

What a fantastic quote!

MJW

I think one of the reasons BAe is downsizing is due to the Serious Fraud Office investigating back handers to Saudi arms buyers as it seems our friends in Saudi Arabia are taking their business elsewhere till the investigation is over.

jaytc2003

iTrader: (1)

if it keeps pslewis off here then it can only be good.









Only jokin Pete keep up the good work

pslewis

So?

Debate today .......

SJ_Skyline

Scrap the lot and invest the money elsewhere.

pslewis

For what it's worth I don't mind either way.

Replace and I am kept busy for as long as I care to carry on working.

Abandon and I mop up a tidy sum in Redundancy Payments and spend my days on the Beach.

New_scooby_04

iTrader: (4)

Ladies and Gentlemen, the President of the United States of America is posting on SN!!!

Regrettably, I'm of the opinion that the development and deployment of nuclear weapons was a Pandora's box moment for civilisation and we do need to make sure we have a viable nuclear deterrent.

That said, 25 billion seems a bit steep.......can we get some parts from Aldi maybe????

Ns04

Janspeed

iTrader: (1)

Hi,

Your government(s) has failed over the past 40 years to establish a proper Nuclear Weapons doctrine, and it is visible in the way that so many projects were cancelled in such a half-wit way.

The failures led to some solutions, but they only have prolonged the problem of what direction to go in.

First it was the V-bomber force, then it was whole bunch of projects (naval, air etc) and finally the end of the WE-177 weapon.

I have read many articles about the cost of developing new weapons, if it was such a good a idea giving up air delivered weapons, and if it has been such a good idea relying solely on SSBN launched weapons.

The French have got the act together, in fact they have always had a very well delineated SOP for the use of Nukes, and the various means of delivery.

They have the funds allocated in their budget, and very few people moan about it. The French also develop new weapons when the present ones reach the end of their operational life, no mucking around with starting projects, spending millions of pounds and then ending it.

The solution to this is not now, it was +20 years ago. If you want a solution then you will have to pay. That is why those overpaid fat politicians are voted in: to take care of these problems.

Thanks

Prasius

iTrader: (1)

We haven't developed a nuclear weapon for almost 50 years - EVERY credible nuclear weapon we've ever had in service since the end of WW2 has, in effect, been an American weapons system.

The issue with replacing the "Trident" though, is more of an issue of replacing the delivery system - the Submarine.

As a member of the military I'm in two minds about it - I certainly have no time for the CND.. wallies.. who think that if we put all our nasty weapons away, everyone else will say "oh! arn't they jolly good chaps!! lets get rid of ours and have a big party with cake and pop for everyone!!". I'm at a loss to work out exactly which planet they're on - but certainly not this one.

This decision can't be delayed - it must be made, as previously said, due to lead in times these major projects require.

Do I think we need as many nuclear weapons? No. I don't - I don't honestly think there is any country that currently has a major nuclear offensive capability who will realistically consider using them anytime soon. The real threat from nuclear weapons comes from countries like N.Korea whos decision making process depends on how much attention their sulking leader is getting on a particular day and if he feels like upsetting someone.

We DO need the ability to remove several major cities or a small country from exsistence. I do wonder if any of todays politicians have the nerve to actually commit to using these weapons though - given that it might violate their human rights (because it doesn't matter if they've just launched a major chemical, biological or nuclear attack upon the UK).

Those who say you can't use these weapons against terrorists are wrong. You can, our politicians would simply choose not to. The same as they choose not to use many other weapons and methods to fight terrorism because of human rights and a simple lack of will to win.

So - in effect, we do need a nuclear deterrent for political reasons - however for military purposes its pretty pointless as I doubt we would ever be given the permission to use it. From this point of view - the money would be better spent increasing the strength of the conventional forces.

Luminous

iTrader: (3)

Buy the whole system from someone else as a complete working package for a known price. Otherwise the costs will just spiral to develop our own system.

Janspeed

iTrader: (1)

Delivery method is the final objective in this case, but the nukes will need replacing anyway.

Shame that all those homegrown projects (UK) were dumped in favour of the Yank equipment all those years ago......

Even an air-delivered weapon should be considered, there seems to be an ever increasing need for them especially for those "friendly" countries that Prasius mentioned.

Thks

Prasius

iTrader: (1)

The reason we got rid of air delivered weapons (I personally saw the last few get taken away from their secure storage back in 96/97 time) was because of logistical issues, problems with accurate delivery and protection. They really arn't suitable as a strategic weapon, only as a tactical one.

Janspeed

iTrader: (1)

But it seems that with the advent of GPS guided weapons like JDAM, JSOW that it could be useful to have a couple of these things in storage somewhere.

The Yanks are considering quite a new designs for the B-2 for Tunnel/Bunker busting duties.

It seems that a lof "baddies" are digging their C&C deeper and deeper. With the accuracy of these weapons it could be viable again. Possibly even in a Strategic role......

Prasius

iTrader: (1)

Keeping in mind that Politics mean you can't use peoples religion, sex, and a whole list of other things against them in psychological warfare - do you really think Blair would say "yes, drop that nuke on the "&£$ers!"

Janspeed

iTrader: (1)

Who knows, the way things are going.........you guys need the nukes and the delivery systems.

You never know what will happen 2morrow, and history has shown us that when we feel the most "comfy" they stick it to us!

Prasius

iTrader: (1)

By comfy do you mean "after the last round of Labour led cuts in the defence budget" ?

*runs before I get infracted for trolling*

Janspeed

iTrader: (1)

You could say that it could be one of the various things.....

Janspeed

iTrader: (1)

"Estimated 1998 spending on all U.S. nuclear weapons and weapons-related programs: $35,100,000,000"

Moan about this:

http://www.brook.edu/fp/projects/nucwcost/50.htm

F1 CJE UK

iTrader: (8)