Lakenheath - nuclear store

[sschofield]

Lakenheath has to be the base to site the nukes. They need to be where the aircraft are based. Also lets hope the cnd lot dont take over the viewing area! Knowing are Police they will be making them tea,and checking there not cold !

There are a number of HAS at Lakenheath that were modified years ago with "vaults" to store B61s, up to 4 per vault. I'll dig a link out when I get home.

[Agent K]

Lakenheath has to be the base to site the nukes. They need to be where the aircraft are based. Also lets hope the cnd lot dont take over the viewing area! Knowing are Police they will be making them tea,and checking there not cold !

That's rather insulting to the police tbh, don't fall for the culture wars stoked up by those who want to use it to mask their activities.......... (oh and it's "our" and "they're" too).

Ultimately, these armed forces are there to protect that freedom and freedom to protest whether we agree with it or not, surely?

[PA200]

There are a number of HAS at Lakenheath that were modified years ago with "vaults" to store B61s, up to 4 per vault. I'll dig a link out when I get home.

All the shelters at Marham had the vaults installed as well, subsequently filled in I believe after the Special Weapons were retired.

[Andy_99]

There are a number of HAS at Lakenheath that were modified years ago with "vaults" to store B61s, up to 4 per vault. I'll dig a link out when I get home.

All the shelters at Marham had the vaults installed as well, subsequently filled in I believe after the Special Weapons were retired.

Maybe with the way the world is going they ought to look at digging the vaults out again & certifying aircraft/pilots to carry them JIC.

[sschofield]

There are a number of HAS at Lakenheath that were modified years ago with "vaults" to store B61s, up to 4 per vault. I'll dig a link out when I get home.

All the shelters at Marham had the vaults installed as well, subsequently filled in I believe after the Special Weapons were retired.

Maybe with the way the world is going they ought to look at digging the vaults out again & certifying aircraft/pilots to carry them JIC.

The weapons were retired in 1998 so there wouldn't be much point!

[Vulcanone]

There are a number of HAS at Lakenheath that were modified years ago with "vaults" to store B61s, up to 4 per vault. I'll dig a link out when I get home.

All the shelters at Marham had the vaults installed as well, subsequently filled in I believe after the Special Weapons were retired.

Maybe with the way the world is going they ought to look at digging the vaults out again & certifying aircraft/pilots to carry them JIC.

As sschofield has said we retired WE177 And then Tornado. And I don't think F-35B is currently cleared to carry any nukes. Rather pointless anyway seeing as we only have the 4 Trident Subs for it now anyway

[Andy_99]

Agree at the moment we have nothing cleared but I'm sure in the event of needing to be certifed the process can be fast-tracked whereas if we don't have the storage it's a non-starter. I'm thinking more the US/NATO controlled weapons that various other NATO countries can carry if the need arises.

[EGDR]

Where would the need arise? Our contribution to the NATO collective deterrent is our submarine force, which is far more significant than us strapping a couple B61s to some fighter aircraft. The F-35B can't carry the B61 internally and there's zero chance of Typhoon ever seeing one.

[Vulcanone]

Agree at the moment we have nothing cleared but I'm sure in the event of needing to be certifed the process can be fast-tracked whereas if we don't have the storage it's a non-starter. I'm thinking more the US/NATO controlled weapons that various other NATO countries can carry if the need arises.

[/quote]


Its taking long enough to certify our weapons of choice on our F-35Bs not to mention on other F-35s. Not that any of use have a day to day guide as to what 17 Sqn do. And We would either have to borrow US B61s or buy some... Imagine what the great unwashed will say about that !!

[Andy_99]

Agree at the moment we have nothing cleared but I'm sure in the event of needing to be certifed the process can be fast-tracked whereas if we don't have the storage it's a non-starter. I'm thinking more the US/NATO controlled weapons that various other NATO countries can carry if the need arises.

Its taking long enough to certify our weapons of choice on our F-35Bs not to mention on other F-35s. Not that any of use have a day to day guide as to what 17 Sqn do. And We would either have to borrow US B61s or buy some... Imagine what the great unwashed will say about that !!
[/quote]

Well that's kind of my point, why not have the storage available should it ever be required. It all goes back to the short-sightedness of selling off bases, assets, reduction in troops etc. because the cold war ended, we're now in a position of having to play catch-up as the Russian Bear is once again flexing it's muscles.

TBH the great unwashed & woke brigades need to remove the rose tinted specs, smell the coffee & realise the the world is not a cute cuddly safe place, that or go & protest in Russia/Iran/China/North Korea.

[Supra]

All the shelters at Marham had the vaults installed as well, subsequently filled in I believe after the Special Weapons were retired.

Maybe with the way the world is going they ought to look at digging the vaults out again & certifying aircraft/pilots to carry them JIC.

As sschofield has said we retired WE177 And then Tornado. And I don't think F-35B is currently cleared to carry any nukes. Rather pointless anyway seeing as we only have the 4 Trident Subs for it now anyway

Just don't get too complacent about four 30 year old Sub's of which only ONE is constantly at sea! Under a program known as Continuous At Sea Deterrence (CASD) at least one submarine is on patrol at all times, with another coming off patrol, another preparing for a patrol and a fourth undergoing maintenance. According to the Royal Navy, CASD has not missed a single day in the last forty-eight years without a submarine on patrol.(Credit 'The National Interest)
Yes, one Sub' can obliterate a whole Country, but only if they get the missiles away first!

Although unserviceability gets more likely as things get older (exception for UK Carriers ) it's likely there's an element of "Triggers' Broom" going on here? I still suspect the final statement in the quotation is only true as nobody has yet tried to destroy that single asset?

[Vulcanone]

Well someday soon they do want to replace them.... Not even sure a replacement is on the drawing boards here yet? Not that it matters anyway. I would hope your not living near them in Scotland. As both the Navy base and the boats would be on Mr whoever has the bigger sticks hit list.....

Lets hope we never have to find out

[Alf]

Well someday soon they do want to replace them.... Not even sure a replacement is on the drawing boards here yet? Not that it matters anyway. I would hope your not living near them in Scotland. As both the Navy base and the boats would be on Mr whoever has the bigger sticks hit list.....

Lets hope we never have to find out

The replacement for the current Trident subs is well underway and has been for quite a while, they will be the Dreadnought class with the first already in build at Barrow...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreadnoug ... _submarine

[Vulcanone]

Thanks Alf, I don't tend to follow what goes on with submarines as they are a bit dull....

[EGDR]

Well that's kind of my point, why not have the storage available should it ever be required.

Because maintaining a complex weapons management system for which we have a) no weapons, and b) no aircraft that could even deliver those non-existent weapons (the F-35B is not and will not be cleared for B61), is not a financially sound strategy when even *if* we had an aircraft based deterrent anymore would still naturally be second fiddle to Trident.

TBH the great unwashed & woke brigades need to remove the rose tinted specs, smell the coffee & realise the the world is not a cute cuddly safe place, that or go & protest in Russia/Iran/China/North Korea.

Is it really not possible to have one thread that doesn't devolve into tired old tirades about supposed "wokeness"?

The RAF lost its last nuclear weapons in 1998. I'm an adult with a university degree and I wasn't even alive then. Being "woke", ignoring it being a meaningless derision, had nothing to do with the decision to wrap up that capability.

Yes, one Sub' can obliterate a whole Country, but only if they get the missiles away first!

One ballistic missile submarine is a lot more survivable than an entire squadron of tactical aircraft. There's a reason they're the premier form of nuclear deterrent that everyone wants (look at India and North Korea).

[Andy_99]

I'm out

I didn't say that the F35B could carry the B61 or the Typhoon, having the ability to store the weapons for AN Other NATO nation may prove useful.
I'm fully aware that Ballistic Missile subs are our deterrent & have been since 1998. I agree they're more survivable than anything else.

My point about wokeness is not directed at anybody on here but the country in general, we need to increase our defence spending realise that we're no longer at peace with certain nations. Our armed forces have been decimated and a whole heap of real estate been sold off we're now in somewhat of a mess that needs sorting.

I've been around long enough to witness the closure of many bases. I've have always thought One day this is going to come and bite us, that day seems to have arrived.

[Supra]

Little bit more thread drift for you. The Government has spent £millions over the past 10 years (& more) providing houses for personnel & buildings on Salisbury Plain for the withdrawal of the final British Field Army units from Germany.

Where do they need to be now I wonder? Is there really a need for an Armoured Battle Front in Andover. UK? & why do Military strategists only predict requirements in hindsight? Keep Calm & Suffer!

[Snoop 95]

Article from the BBC website today. Maybe, maybe not is the conclusion:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-68217519

[C24]

How did the Woke word get into this thread?

Woke is an adjective derived from African-American Vernacular English meaning "alert to racial prejudice and discrimination". Beginning in the 2010s, it came to encompass a broader awareness of social inequalities such as racial injustice, sexism, and denial of LGBT rights.

Just curious, I don’t want to fallout with anyone on FC

[NorvilleRogers]

How did the Woke word get into this thread?

Woke is an adjective derived from African-American Vernacular English meaning "alert to racial prejudice and discrimination". Beginning in the 2010s, it came to encompass a broader awareness of social inequalities such as racial injustice, sexism, and denial of LGBT rights.

Just curious, I don’t want to fallout with anyone on FC

Thanks for the education, woke sounds like a good thing to be and a nice type of person. Much better than a Daily Mail reader!!

Apologies that we are going a bit off topic.