And (once upon a time) Rota, Spain.
Toulon France.
On a lighter note, for 14 million euros you can get the old sub base near Tromso Norway. Nothing like an evil overlord’s lair inside a mountain with an underground sub pen!
[I understand the monthly electricity bill alone was on the order of 50 000 euro :eek: I don’t even want to think about *heating* the place through an arctic circle winter! ]
Cool, then I can threaten to destroy the world unless they pay me … 1 MILLION dollars!
Can I have sharks with frickin’ lasers on their heads, too? 
I clarified on post 27 that it was my understanding that they do not now, nor probably have they in the last decade (unless someone can provide info otherwise).
That can’t possibly be true.
On the note of nuclear weapons on aircraft carriers. Do we keep any nuclear weapons in our arsenal that are practical to deploy from an aircraft carrier? It’s my understanding none of the craft the navy still uses on aircraft carriers are considered ‘nuclear capable.’
Certification aside, we aren’t really in the business of little nuclear weapons, while we have developed some, it’s just not what we need for ‘deterrent’
None of our current bombers can take off or land on an aircraft carrier right? How big are the armaments typically used on carrier based jets and how do our nuclear warheads size up against them?
As **Bookkeeper **stated above, the United States Navy has had an all-nuclear powered sub fleet for quite some time now. The Barbel class were the last diesel-electric attack subs (I don’t think the US ever had a non-nuclear powered boomer) and they were decommissioned in the late 80s. There were probably a few odd diesel/electric subs that were actual commissioned US Naval vessels, but were only for training, testing new weapons, systems etc. and never sent on war patrol (USS Dolphin). The US Navy actually used to have one nuclear powered research sub, the NR-1. Although a Naval (i.e. military) vessel, it contained no offensive weapons, had a crew of about a dozen men, and a small, trashcan-sized reactor. During one of Robert Ballard’s expeditions he somehow arranged for its presence because, being nuclear powered, it had plenty of bright floodlights it could use underwater indefinitely.
I know the Brits used to maintain both nuclear & diesel/electric subs, don’t know if they still have the D/Es or have retired them. Russia certainly has many D/Es subs because always being strapped for cash (particularly in the old Soviet days) they would only want to retire a sub basically when it, ah, sank!
Nuclear weapons are not limited to just bombers, subs & silos (though those three make up the US Triad nuclear deterrent). Modern fighter and ground attack aircraft can all be fitted with nuclear-armed missiles, bombs, heck even nuclear depth-charges! And they all can be (and are) carrier-based. We have weapons which are called ‘dial-a-yield’ that literally have a dial (of sorts) on them and can be set to detonate with a range from between tens to hundreds of kilotons. Military likes to keep its options as open as possible.
Diesel subs aren’t just old moldering leftovers, they’re still being actively developed. The Lada is still being worked on and the Kilo, its predecessor, is newer than some of their nuclear designs. The Australian Collins class is an example of a Western country going with D/E for modern subs.
IIRC the US has decommissioned all tactical nukes except for free-fall bombs. These can be carried by the Hornet and Super Hornet and F-35 eventually. However, there are now no nuclear missiles for these fighters. The only missiles left are the ballistic and cruise missiles.
boytyperanma: With the retirement of the A-6 bomber, and F-14 fighter (and later, fighter/bomber) the remaining bomber flying off of U.S. carriers is the F/A-18 Hornet/SuperHornet (E and F-versions). At least until the F-35 shows up. In addition, the Marines fly the AV-8B Harrier II. The Harriers don’t deploy as part of a USN carrier air wing, but I’m sure that plans have been drawn up for them to deploy off a carrier if the need arose.
Per the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists listing (page 2 at the .pdf) of the U.S. arsenal in 2010, the U.S. had 400 B61 deployed nuclear gravity bombs with the Full-Fuzing Option mentioned by Hail Ants. 200 of those were stored in Europe, for use by NATO and U.S. forces. While the F/A-18 is listed as capable of carrying this non-strategic nuclear weapon, comments made by Dr. Christopher A. Ford, United States Special Representative for Nuclear Nonproliferation in 2007 would seem to indicate that the weapon has been removed from deployment by naval aircraft.
Now, if the B-61s carried by Hornets are classed as ‘strategic’, then they still could be deployed and Mr. Ford’s comments would still be correct. The Bulletin classes B-61 variants used by the Navy as non-strategic, but nothing says that the USN had to adopt the Bulletin’s definition. And even if they aren’t currently deployed on aircraft carriers, they can be redeployed if necessary. FWIW, the wiki for the Nimitz CVN notes both that,
and quotes RADM John Blake, Commander of Carrier Strike Group 11 during a visit by USN Nimitz to Chemnai, India in 2007, as saying,
The B-61 is undergoing a controversial Life Extension Program. Despite the controversy, as it’s one of the only two gravity bombs left in the U.S. deployed arsenal—and the only ‘small’ one—I’m sure it’ll still be around for awhile. (The other is the B-83 1.2 Mt device, currently the most powerful in the US nuclear arsenal. The guess is that the B-2/B-52 carries it, but the wiki for the B83 lists the F/A-18 as capable of carrying it too.)
In addition, despite my posting earlier in the thread that the nuclear-capable SLCM were retired in 1992, that’s incorrect. The H.W. Bush Administration did try to, but the TLAM/N SLCM was retained in the Clinton Administration’s re-evaluation. Whether it was ever re-deployed, or whether the TLAM/Ns have been sitting on a shelf since 1992, I don’t know. Per the 2009 Bulletin of Atomic Scientists look at U.S. nuclear weapons, it wasn’t deployed in 2009, but 1/3 of the missiles and warheads were kept at the two Strategic Weapons Facilities at King’s Bay and Bangor; the other 2/3 in ‘inactive reserve’. Since the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review Report, It’s currently in the middle of the retirement process. I’ve no idea if any of the missiles are currently still kept—in immediately-deployable condition, inactive reserve, or simply cannibalized to make more conventional TLAMs—but I strongly doubt that the warheads have been dismantled yet.
As to what’s the largest conventional weapon that goes off a carrier, my guess is that it would be a guided bomb using the Mk-84 bomb body. This bomb weighs ~1 ton, and is filled with 945 lb of high explosive. More esoteric, larger bombs such as the GBU-43 “MOAB” are designed to be dropped from C-130 transport aircraft, which I don’t believe could fly from a carrier (They certainly don’t in normal service.). Large, earth penetrating bombs such as the Desert Storm era-GBU-28, and GBU-37 and GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator, are meant to be dropped by larger aircraft than the F/A-18. Though if you told me that tests were run with the GBU-28 by the SuperHornet, (or the F-14) I wouldn’t be surprised. I don’t know whether there are still any Fuel-Air Explosive bombs in the stockpile, such as the older CBU-55 and -72, which were also used in Desert Storm by U.S. Marine Corps’ A-6 bombers, though not OIF, IIRC. I don’t know whether the Hornet/SuperHornet or Harrier II is capable of carrying those bombs. Those FAE, given ideal conditions, should produce an explosion in excess of that caused by a Mk-84. Finally, one of the JSOW variants used by the Navy has a BROACH two part warhead, giving it ~double the effectiveness against hard targets as an equivalent weight, conventionally armed TLAM. By contrast, the smallest “dial-able” yield for any of the B61 nuclear bomb variants is 300 tons of TNT. There’s just a tremendous difference in magnitude between even the largest conventional bombs and the smallest nuclear ones.
Finally, the Royal Navy decommissioned its last SSKs, the Upholder-class, in 1994. They currently are an all-nuclear service, (not counting DSRV-type vehicles), with their newest class of SSNs, theAstute-class, commissioned in 2010.
A little box for the guard on duty on deck too, cute 
A Nessie shelter, no doubt.
Damn world peace & all its annoying treaties! Makes everything so complicated & less fun!
Thanks for all that! Most informative.
The Brits will win any naval engagement not just from historical tradition, but because they have such cool names for ships.
What ship could survive an encounter with HMS Indefatigable or HMS Agamemnon?
All bets are off if you have the misfortune to find yourself serving on HMS Candytuft or Gay Bruiser, though.
Yup…it figures :rolleyes: . Attack boats didn’t have those! Fast attack tough, brother!
Au Contraire, however one spells ot.
HMS Glowworm took on the heavy cruiser Admiral Hipper.
Tough guys.
So…it was a bottom?