Russia has invaded Ukraine

Originally Posted by Pierre

As I said in my previous post. If fixed wing aeroplanes turn out to be the preferred delivery mechanism of Armageddon, you win. I doubt it though.


We were told to move on though.

You’re probably right - they just like having multi-National exercises involving 14 countries every year testing something they never intend to use…

btw, nice switch from "Bombers as a delivery mechanism for nuclear warhead ended in the 60's." to "I'll only believe it if they are used".

Hardly a switch, both mean the same, but your obsession with nit picking is getting tiresome.

[pip08456]

Isreal about to start arming Ukraine?

Israeli minister: Time has come for Israel to support Ukraine.

The delivery of Iranian ballistic missiles to Russia impels Israel to deliver military aid to Ukraine, Israeli Diaspora Affairs Minister Nachman Shai wrote on Twitter.

"There is no longer any doubt where Israel should stand in this bloody conflict," wrote Shai. "The time has come for Ukraine to receive military aid as well, just as the U.S. and NATO countries provide."

The statement came after an Oct. 16 Washington Post report stating that Russia would purchase Fateh-110 and Zolfaghar ballistic missiles from Iran.

Kyiv Independant

No question - they have particular know-how when it comes to bringing down Iranian missiles. They have got away with prevaricating until now but as more and more of these pound shop rockets start flying, it’s going to become morally difficult for the country best equipped to stop them to just sit on the sidelines.

Throughout this war, Russia has had a knack for taking decisions that make its position worse. Buying missiles from Iran, thereby forcing the world’s foremost expert on missile defence to start equipping Ukraine, is just the latest piece of Kremlin ineptitude.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by pip08456

Isreal about to start arming Ukraine?
Kyiv Independant

Let's hope Ukraine gets the Iron Dome.

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Let's hope Ukraine gets the Iron Dome.

That would be the ideal Andrew, we'll have to wait and see.

Originally Posted by Paul

Hardly a switch, both mean the same, but your obsession with nit picking is getting tiresome.

Paul, apologies if you believe I’m nit-picking, but the reason I am strongly rebutting the statement "Bombers as a delivery mechanism for nuclear warhead ended in the 60's" is for a number of personal experiences.

I (and many others in the RAF) were in awe of the RAF Vulcan/Buccaneer/Phantom/Jaguar aircrew who were tasked with delivering part of the U.K.’s Nuclear Deterrent, because they (and we) knew they were very unlikely to return from their missions - so when someone posts, without a shred of supporting evidence, that these peoples’ willingness to sacrifice their lives in the 70s and 80s didn’t in fact happen, it sticks in the craw.

Also, the fact that my ex-brother-in-law was a Weapons Tech on Tactical Nukes on Bucks at Honington, then on Vulcans at Akrotiri and Scampton in the 70s and 80s, and part of my job in West Berlin (with GCHQ, NSA, & The USAF) in the late 70s and early 80s was to supply information that informed briefings to enable the fighters and bombers from Bruggen, Scampton, Waddington, Honington, and Akrotiri, on how to avoid the Soviet Air Defence network to enable them to deliver their buckets of Instant Sunshine, makes me believe that my (and many others who did the same jobs) experience and knowledge in this area outweighs that of someone whose entire argument seems to consist of "no, they didn’t"…

My last words on the subject.

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Paul, apologies if you believe I’m nit-picking, but the reason I am strongly rebutting the statement "Bombers as a delivery mechanism for nuclear warhead ended in the 60's" is for a number of personal experiences.

I (and many others in the RAF) were in awe of the RAF Vulcan/Buccaneer/Phantom/Jaguar aircrew who were tasked with delivering part of the U.K.’s Nuclear Deterrent, because they (and we) knew they were very unlikely to return from their missions - so when someone posts, without a shred of supporting evidence, that these peoples’ willingness to sacrifice their lives in the 70s and 80s didn’t in fact happen, it sticks in the craw.

Also, the fact that my ex-brother-in-law was a Weapons Tech on Tactical Nukes on Bucks at Honington, then on Vulcans at Akrotiri and Scampton in the 70s and 80s, and part of my job in West Berlin (with GCHQ, NSA, & The USAF) in the late 70s and early 80s was to supply information that informed briefings to enable the fighters and bombers from Bruggen, Scampton, Waddington, Honington, and Akrotiri, on how to avoid the Soviet Air Defence network to enable them to deliver their buckets of Instant Sunshine, makes me believe that my (and many others who did the same jobs) experience and knowledge in this area outweighs that of someone whose entire argument seems to consist of "no, they didn’t"…

My last words on the subject.

Hugh, although I agree with every word (I've been "in awe" with th RAF since childhood). You must agree (as a Moderator) the spat you having however justified has nothing to do with the thread.

I’m sorry if it was perceived as a spat - I believed I was trying to clarify misinformation.

[Pierre]

I was quite happy to leave it several pages ago when asked.

https://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/blog/av...ck-buck-raids/

And by 1968, the Vulcan would no longer have been able to reach its Soviet targets so the nuclear deterrent was transferred to the Royal Navy’s nuclear powered submarines with their Polaris missiles. The Vulcan continued to carry nuclear weapons through to the end of the 1970’s in a tactical role.

They stopped being primary delivery mechanism in the 60’s

As I said.

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/show...postcount=1934

So if the RAF is spreading misinformation, take it up with them.

How do you square

The Vulcan continued to carry nuclear weapons through to the end of the 1970’s in a tactical role.

with

Bombers as a delivery mechanism for nuclear warhead ended in the 60's

Oh, I see - you just added "primary", which wasn’t in your original post…

As you quoted the RAF Museum…

https://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/blog/ja...d-war-warrior/

The biggest user of the Jaguar was RAF Germany where it was operated by five squadrons. Four squadrons were based at RAF Brüggen, the first of which, No. 14 Squadron stood up in April 1975, where Jaguars began replacing Phantoms in the strike/attack/reconnaissance role thereby releasing Phantoms to replace Lightnings in the Air Defence role; and it was to No. 14 Squadron that the Museum’s XX824 was delivered in late 1975. The fifth Squadron, No. 2 Squadron, stationed at Laarbruch operated Jaguar in the Tactical Reconnaissance role.

The Brüggen Jaguars were RAF Germany’s frontline aircraft, ready to respond to any aggression from countries of the Warsaw Pact in central Europe, flying mostly at low level in order to penetrate Warsaw Pact air defences the Jaguars fulfilled two roles. One or two aircraft from each squadron maintained a 24 hour a day nuclear Quick Reaction Alert (QRA), which could be launched at 15 minutes notice in response to the Supreme Allied Commander Europe’s (SACEUR) request for strikes. Such strikes might be conducted individually or as a part of a much larger response to acts of aggression. The other role was conventional attack against a variety of predetermined targets, such as Warsaw Pact airfields and bridges, Jaguars would also have been expected to attack formations of tanks and to interdict the movement of reinforcements to the frontline in order to prevent allied ground forces being overwhelmed.

Group Captain Bill Pixton, a pilot on No. 14 Squadron, recalls what it was like to stand nuclear QRA, the theory of dropping a nuclear weapon and the strike/attack roles of Jaguar in RAF Germany during this period.

[papa smurf]

Badger to Biggles, Badger to Biggles release the nitpicky bomb and bring the old crate home.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Hugh

How do you square



with



Oh, I see - you just added "primary", which wasn’t in your original post…

As you quoted the RAF Museum…

https://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/blog/ja...d-war-warrior/

You’re a very tedious person.

My first post on this particular matter in response to Reports of Russian bombers capable of carrying nuclear bombs was to dismiss this as unlikely in a one sentence reply as, as I understood it the use of bombers and in particular U.K. V - Bombers as the main U.K. nuclear deterrent ended in the ‘60’s. I didn’t go into the whole history or military record, it was a one sentence reply.

I did indeed say

Bombers as a delivery mechanism for nuclear warhead ended in the 60's.

When first challenged by you on that statement, my very next statement was, as I had been challenged and therefore had to clarify/ expand on that one sentence. Was That:

Once we moved to submarine launched, and land based ICBMs they pretty much became obsolete, bombers may have been held in reserve.

That is a wholly accurate statement and backed up by the RAF articles.

The RAF museum states many times times in the 4no. Articles

By 1966 Soviet missile defences had become so effective that, despite the improvements of the B2, Vulcans switched from high-to-low-level penetration. In 1970 the decision was taken to withdraw them from the nuclear deterrent in 1970 in favour of the Polaris ballistic missile system which could be fired underwater by the Royal Navy.

The UK joined the American Skybolt program in 1960 for a ballistic missile to be carried by the Avro Vulcan bomber. Armed with Britain’s own Red Snow warhead, it could be launched 970 km (600 miles) from the target. When the Americans unilaterally cancelled the programme, the Vulcan was left without an alternative upgrade. This led to a diplomatic rift within the Special Alliance, known today as the Skybolt Crisis. An emergency meeting between parties from the US and UK was called, leading to the Nassau agreement in which Britain was offered the advanced Polaris submarine-launched ballistic missile.

It is clear to anyone and everyone, but you, on this forum what my point was.

And you’re just coming across as childish at this point.

Enough of this now, back to the topic.

[pip08456]

Thank you Paul.