Does the RN need SSBN's anymore?

Lord Owen on the wireless this morning suggested that the very best nuclear deterrent (ICBMs capable of penetrating Moscow’s ABM defences) is no longer necessary but that some kind of nuclear deterrent is until such time as everyone can be persuaded to disarm.

I find it hard to argue with the argument as a whole.

My concerns are with the fiddly technical bits. What if Moscow becomes our foe again? What if Moscow modernises its ABM defences? What if no one else agrees to nuclear disarmament?

Meh quote away, you both past and present are correct it is the best deterrent.

We went down the SSBN route for a reason, it was decided it was the best deterrent for the UK, that hasn’t changed since the Soviet Union fell down.

quoting myself:o

That is the fundamental reason why any other deterrent does not work for the UK in my eyes, we are a small island nation full of nimby’s. We dont have the vast acreage to hide silo’s and keep them away from nutters and we dont have enough large airfields to disperse bombers to. Furthermore an airborne deterrent is the least secure, reliable and effective route.

Who would stop it when there is a new shiny SSBN in the water?
To deter Pakistan a two dozens of silo’ed ICBMs would suffer.

And where exactly would we put these ICBM’s on this tiny little island, the placement of Silos was one of the reasons Blue Streak was binned, you think the nimby’s come out over a wind farm wait until you make them a target for a first strike.

Kev thanks for the post, looks like the will have a compartment built and working long before the subs need replaced. Hopefully this should simplify the build of the new subs and maybe be a tad cheaper.

Schorsch, Germany may not have it’s own nuclear weapons but they are under the US nuclear shield. Luckily Germany has educated itself to see that Russia is not all bad and has a much better relationship with them than many EU nations. As a whole however Russia EU relations i feel will be strained in the years to come as we expand into the former soviet block and they lose influence, furthermore some of the EU nations have territorial disputes with Russia in the Arctic and if we can’t support our members what good are we.

In regards to Nukes and Europe. I think the EU should have a nuclear capability as we are a massive economic power and a medium military power. For us to have a capable defense that can keep us safe when the world changes we need SSBN’s to be assured a retaliatory capability just incase anything happens and also to deter aggression. If the EU further integrates then we will be the most powerfull close knit group of nations on the face of the planet. The further expansion of the EU eastwards will also antagonize russia as it’s influence and power in neighbouring states is reduced this i think will be dangerous for the EU and Russia has shown the world it will act like a child. Also the ageing population in the EU will leave us with yet smaller armed forces leaving us incapable and unwilling to fight any conventional war with a near peer, also this will affect manning numbers so EU forces will be very small compared to it’s total population.

Don’t be a tit, we ditched our air launched nukes and that didn’t eliminate those from the world, did it? even though their potential use is extremely limited, and as for no threats, you do realise just how much the world has changed in the last 20 years right, just how much do you think it can change before our next class of SSBNs is on stream, it ian’t that tough to build an ICBM, and all it would take is a political shift in Pakistan to put nukes in the hands of some very nasty people.

Who would stop it when there is a new shiny SSBN in the water?
To deter Pakistan a two dozens of silo’ed ICBMs would suffer.

I agree. More important than pouring billions of sterling into questionable deterrent is to maintain conventional capabilities. Most nations (including the one I live in) has no nuclear deterrent and although there are nations that could strike us (actually, it is only Russia) I don’t think one needs it. I do not question nuclear deterrence in general.
But face it: nuclear based ICBMs were developed to have a close to indestructible deterrent. It only works in numbers with several being on patrol, otherwise your opponent might find it and sink your only patrolling submarine. If numbers cannot be provided, skip the whole thing.

At the moment no nation seems to be keen on directly threatening UK or Western Europe in general. China has the theoretical ability, but so has WE (and although China seems to match power, we still have 4-5 times the GDP at one third the number of people). Not having dedicated second strike capability is also a sign towards other nation that this capability is not desperately needed any more. Other nations like Russia or France also feel the financial pressure to maintain these capabilities.

Maybe UK should start a campaign for a treaty that bans ballistic missiles on submarines altogether. Humanity could do without.

Don’t be a tit, we ditched our air launched nukes and that didn’t eliminate those from the world, did it? even though their potential use is extremely limited, and as for no threats, you do realise just how much the world has changed in the last 20 years right, just how much do you think it can change before our next class of SSBNs is on stream, it ian’t that tough to build an ICBM, and all it would take is a political shift in Pakistan to put nukes in the hands of some very nasty people.

With all this talk now about replacing the still very modern Vanguard class alot of very good questions have been asked except if Great Brittian needs to be a nuclear power. I would think it would be better to just let them reach the end of their service lifes and replace with more SSN that have a strike capable VLS system, Or to develope a SSGN instead of SSBN.

Ducks and runs…….

-Philbob

I agree. More important than pouring billions of sterling into questionable deterrent is to maintain conventional capabilities. Most nations (including the one I live in) has no nuclear deterrent and although there are nations that could strike us (actually, it is only Russia) I don’t think one needs it. I do not question nuclear deterrence in general.
But face it: nuclear based ICBMs were developed to have a close to indestructible deterrent. It only works in numbers with several being on patrol, otherwise your opponent might find it and sink your only patrolling submarine. If numbers cannot be provided, skip the whole thing.

At the moment no nation seems to be keen on directly threatening UK or Western Europe in general. China has the theoretical ability, but so has WE (and although China seems to match power, we still have 4-5 times the GDP at one third the number of people). Not having dedicated second strike capability is also a sign towards other nation that this capability is not desperately needed any more. Other nations like Russia or France also feel the financial pressure to maintain these capabilities.

Maybe UK should start a campaign for a treaty that bans ballistic missiles on submarines altogether. Humanity could do without.

Having worked on the Trident build programme from 1984-1989 at Vickers Barrow, i understand why the project needs to be planned now, for in-service dates of 2020+. Presently BAE are building the Astute class, wgich could run to 5-7 boats. To ensure the UK maintains the ability to build Nuclear submarines, there cannot be any delays in the planning of the next class of SBBN.

May as well chuck this in here since its related:

US Navy awards $9.7m missile contract
The US Navy has awarded General Dynamics Electric Boat a $9.7m contract modification for Common Missile Compartment prototype material procurement, manufacturing and testing.

The award follows on from a $76m contract announced in December 2008 for engineering, technical services, concept studies and design of a Common Missile Compartment for the next-generation ballistic missile submarines under development for the United Kingdom’s Royal Navy and the US Navy.

If all options are exercised and funded, the overall contract would have a value of more than $600m.

Electric Boat is a wholly owned subsidiary of General Dynamics, which is headquartered in Falls Church, Virginia and employs approximately 92,000 people worldwide.

Since the story about going down to 3 boats was first covered I’ve spotted 3 common points being made by any of the (few) knowledgable interviewees

*Correctly calling Vanguards Boats not Subs
*Pointing out that losing 1/4 of fleet does not equate to saving 1/4 money as some/many costs are sunk costs rather than unit costs
*Pointing out that Brown has couched his suggestion with the words – if the RN can guarantee the same uniinterrupted patrol pattern

Of course headlines and knee jerk comments (by people on all sides of the argument) have all omitted these.

Al

I agree with those points we dont save anywhere near 25% of the cash as most of it is R&D, tooling up etc. I think it will only save the cost of the steel really and some bits of equipment. So maybe around £2billion as some people have pointed out in the media.

I do realise as well that this has not been commited or written in stone so it could stay at the same 4 boats. I agree with Grim there are plenty of get out clauses but it is again as you have said about cost not some political agenda.

They could be land based but i dont see why they would with the USAF A-10’s, F-15’s, F-16’s etc all land based and in Afghanistan. I would imagine the only reason there are piccies and the USN do it is to prove they are still relevant when the biggest war is inland more of a “were still here” kinda thing.

The logistics trail would not be that big as the CBG’s are supported by a Supply class vessel which in turn is topped up every so often by other vessels. It’s much easier to do this than to send things by ship to pakistan and then drive it to Afghanistan. The other route is to fly things in via C-17 which would be more costly. So supply a CBG off the coast is much easier and cheaper and less politically problematic than the other 2 routes. Also the carrier groups would still get deployed anyway but this way they are helping and doing something useful, the USN always keeps carriers at sea even if they are just on patrol which i know to us seems like a huge amount of cash to burn but to them it’s routine.

It’s not a few planes when you think about it there are over 80 aircraft on board with around 30 or so being superbugs which do most of the work i imagine as they have longer range and more modern systems. You are also correct to point out the Carrier based aircraft are much safer than land based aircraft especially since in Afghanistan there is no front line.

Since the story about going down to 3 boats was first covered I’ve spotted 3 common points being made by any of the (few) knowledgable interviewees

*Correctly calling Vanguards Boats not Subs
*Pointing out that losing 1/4 of fleet does not equate to saving 1/4 money as some/many costs are sunk costs rather than unit costs
*Pointing out that Brown has couched his suggestion with the words – if the RN can guarantee the same uniinterrupted patrol pattern

Of course headlines and knee jerk comments (by people on all sides of the argument) have all omitted these.

Al

On the last * point, I also noticed he used words to the effect of:

a cut in the submarine fleet was dependent on technical progress and suitable commitments from other nations.

Plenty of get out clauses in there but they won’t be used, it is about the money anyway. Only way I can see them using the get out clause is if someone with clout says it will mean CASD is no longer possible/safe.

Since the story about going down to 3 boats was first covered I’ve spotted 3 common points being made by any of the (few) knowledgable interviewees

*Correctly calling Vanguards Boats not Subs
*Pointing out that losing 1/4 of fleet does not equate to saving 1/4 money as some/many costs are sunk costs rather than unit costs
*Pointing out that Brown has couched his suggestion with the words – if the RN can guarantee the same uniinterrupted patrol pattern

Of course headlines and knee jerk comments (by people on all sides of the argument) have all omitted these.

Al

People have gotten confused the 25% loss is because we cut 1 boat which is 25% of our sub fleet so we lost 25%.

I think someone misused the numbers thats all.

We usually have 48 warheads out and about at any one time. That to me is what we should have minimum on a sub more when we need to such as when things look dangerous. 160 is the lowest number of warheads is the bare minimum i think we should have as that allows 3 boats to have around 48 warheads assigned to them and the rest would be for testing and maintenance. Remember these warheads need top-up’s every so often and need to be checked hence why there are convoys up and down the country every so often.

Obligatory, Afghanistan is roughly 600nm from the coast so it’s not that bad and yes they do get tanked. Fly into Afghan air space hook up with a tanker tank up go on patrol for 2 hours come back re-tank, patrol, re-tank and head home. Not as barmy as people think. It means you can have lower numbers of people in Afghanistan in danger and you have a much shorter logistics trail for those aircraft as carriers carry all the stuff you need. Im not sure they do it much but they must for the US defense.mil site to have pictures of USN F-18’s being tanked over stan.

Or the USN birds ARE actually land based?

Anyway, wouldn’t the logistical trail for a CVBG be multitudes higher than a few ground based air assets at Kandahar? The planes flying from the carrier are much safer and easier to support but for the whole carrier group needed to support those few planes I think it becomes less useful.

I’d only be shelling out to have a CBG in use if I was in a war where I couldn’t get land based air assets in a suitable location or if the land based air assets were particularly vulnerable.

People have gotten confused the 25% loss is because we cut 1 boat which is 25% of our sub fleet so we lost 25%.

I think someone misused the numbers thats all.

We usually have 48 warheads out and about at any one time. That to me is what we should have minimum on a sub more when we need to such as when things look dangerous. 160 is the lowest number of warheads is the bare minimum i think we should have as that allows 3 boats to have around 48 warheads assigned to them and the rest would be for testing and maintenance. Remember these warheads need top-up’s every so often and need to be checked hence why there are convoys up and down the country every so often.

Obligatory, Afghanistan is roughly 600nm from the coast so it’s not that bad and yes they do get tanked. Fly into Afghan air space hook up with a tanker tank up go on patrol for 2 hours come back re-tank, patrol, re-tank and head home. Not as barmy as people think. It means you can have lower numbers of people in Afghanistan in danger and you have a much shorter logistics trail for those aircraft as carriers carry all the stuff you need. Im not sure they do it much but they must for the US defense.mil site to have pictures of USN F-18’s being tanked over stan.

It looks incredibly inefficient & expensive to have carrier based F-18 providing CAS in Afghanistan. They will need air refueling to have any loiter time.
http://www.lonelyplanet.com/maps/asia/

Are you sure on that last bit? Wouldn’t the USN birds have to cross Pakistan/Iran to get there? Which is a no-no, no?

Exactly, love carriers, want carriers but strategic aircraft have legs and give you options also. Tac fighters need constant tanking, carry small payloads and make for a big fatigue problem on crews (everyone forgets fighters have one pilot, he can’t stay up for too many hours) Now a “vulcan” orbiting overhead carrying various munitions,that needs far less tanker support, packing a relief pilot….

75%? Our peak stockpile was about 300 wasn’t it? How can 160 be 25% of 300?

I’m guessing thats mixed figures. 300 was our trident total, the 75% also includes WE177s etc??? I might be wrong.

Lot of dispair on here about 160 being “few bombs” :confused: That is a lot of nuclear bang…. the UK can destroy every US state capital three times over and still have enough bombage to finish off DC and half a dozen other large cities….how many nuclear bombs do you want?

Considering we are
A) unlikely ever to use them
B) anybody (including china) that we might possibly ever get into a nuclear tangle with would be crippled by a single well placed bomb on their largest city then even 160 seems adequate, half that would seem adequate.

Given that we only ever have something like 40 at sea anyway I can’t see why people are worried by having “less than the French” :confused: We did sign the entente cordial chaps, Napoleonic wars are long over and I think they have forgiven us for burning JDArc (though i’m not sure they have forgiven us for liberating them in 1944…)

Look at how the world crapped itself when North Korea gained (possibly) ONE bomb…you don’t need much to be taken seriously. (I’m not advocating we have one bomb by the way….😀 )

They would be USMC F-18’s or canadian jets based in country. Im pretty sure the USN does lots of work there are pics on google and a pic on Wiki of a tristar tanking them. Pakistan has huge convoys of munitions and other stuff moving through from ports on the coast so overflight i dont think would be a huge problem since the people cant really see them. Also since the pakistani government is only in power thanks to the US i dont see how well it would go down if the yanks were told ‘NO’.