Trident Replacement thread

In other words when we were paying for two world wars!

The national debt is going to increase from £1 trillion to £1.6 trillion in the lifetime of this government. Just imagine, it took from 1694 to 2010 for us to borrow £1 trillion, and we plan to increase the national debt by 60% in just five years.

At the end of which time it will be less, relative to our GDP, than at the end of the Napoleonic wars, or between 1918 & 1960.

As I said earlier there is no specific threat in terms of a hostile nation at this time. Even so this system can protect us now and in the future from nuclear blackmail and from nuclear weapons which is a threat that has proliferation not decreased.

What good is a conventional power projection force if every time you move to use it you’re blackmailed out of it with the threat of nuclear weapons?

I find it hard to see that a system devised to beat the ABM defences around Moscow is really necessary to deter the sort of rogue states which might develop nuclear weapons in years to come. I am all for keeping nuclear weapons, but we must cut our coat according to our cloth. We already have SSNs, we already have Tomahawk, and we have the ability to make nuclear warheads. It seems like a good fit. However in reality I think governments will kick the can down the road and find ways to keep our existing Trident fleet going into the 2030s.

Hail PPP….bringer of light to those who are in darkness and cant see past the end of their nose.:D

Deterring whom? that’s the question. During the cold war we knew the answer, and it was straightforward to devise the solution. The SLBM was ideal. But we are going forward into a world of ongoing financial crisis. The national debt is going to increase from £1 trillion to £1.6 trillion in the lifetime of this government. Just imagine, it took from 1694 to 2010 for us to borrow £1 trillion, and we plan to increase the national debt by 60% in just five years. I want us to maintain a strong and balanced navy (and indeed defence force in general), and I want Britain to keep nuclear weapons. In a perfect world I’d like Trident, but not at all costs. This is not some sort of Top Gun fantasy as has been flippantly suggested, it is reality. I don’t want the navy to consist of three new Trident boats and nothing else. In reality, I don’t think that will happen, because I don’t think a new Trident system will be procured.

As I said earlier there is no specific threat in terms of a hostile nation at this time. Even so this system can protect us now and in the future from nuclear blackmail and from nuclear weapons which is a threat that has proliferation not decreased.

What good is a conventional power projection force if every time you move to use it you’re blackmailed out of it with the threat of nuclear weapons?

Yes this was a system born out of Cold War and relations with Russia may have improved but that is not the real threat. The real threat is that of nuclear weapons themselves and in fact the proliferation of those weapons has actually increased not decreased. Do you know who will have them and be able to threaten us with for them for decades to come?

Having a true deterrent capability is the best option to protect us from this threat.

Would you advocate doing away with flood defences just because you cannot see any thunderclouds?

In fact the real comparison is whether you would advocate doing away with flood defences because you have not been flooded in the last 30 years and ignoring the fact that maybe the flood defences helped prevent the flood in the first place.

And yet are there not rain clouds on the horizon?
Iran? North Korea? Both also developing ballistic missiles

The first duty of the armed forces is the protection of the UK population. Notwithstanding the Falklands et al, Trident is a greater factor in that than all the Astutes and QECs combined

You are entitled to your opinion of course, but I feel that elevating Trident to totemic status whilst inevitably neglecting our vital conventional defences (remember, there is no no extra money for Trident) would be a big mistake.

We know what you think John, no need to keep repeating yourself.

Sorry, I didn’t realise you’d been made God.

Deterring whom? that’s the question. .

Would you advocate doing away with flood defences just because you cannot see any thunderclouds?

In fact the real comparison is whether you would advocate doing away with flood defences because you have not been flooded in the last 30 years and ignoring the fact that maybe the flood defences helped prevent the flood in the first place.

And yet are there not rain clouds on the horizon?
Iran? North Korea? Both also developing ballistic missiles

The first duty of the armed forces is the protection of the UK population. Notwithstanding the Falklands et al, Trident is a greater factor in that than all the Astutes and QECs combined

We know what you think John, no need to keep repeating yourself.

Thank you for clarifying the current circumstances for us.

I still think that the point remains that even with 8 missiles and a maximum of 40 warheads, 8 missiles gives allows for up to 96 MIRVs with 40 of them containing nuclear warheads. This is still an effective deterrent that is in a different league compared with TLAM-N.

Deterring whom? that’s the question. During the cold war we knew the answer, and it was straightforward to devise the solution. The SLBM was ideal. But we are going forward into a world of ongoing financial crisis. The national debt is going to increase from £1 trillion to £1.6 trillion in the lifetime of this government. Just imagine, it took from 1694 to 2010 for us to borrow £1 trillion, and we plan to increase the national debt by 60% in just five years. I want us to maintain a strong and balanced navy (and indeed defence force in general), and I want Britain to keep nuclear weapons. In a perfect world I’d like Trident, but not at all costs. This is not some sort of Top Gun fantasy as has been flippantly suggested, it is reality. I don’t want the navy to consist of three new Trident boats and nothing else. In reality, I don’t think that will happen, because I don’t think a new Trident system will be procured.

“Therefore the number of warheads on board each submarine would be reduced from a maximum of 48 to a maximum of 40, the number of operational missiles on the Vanguard Class submarines would be reduced to no more than eight, and the number of operational warheads reduced from fewer than 160 to no more than 120.”

Source here

Thank you for clarifying the current circumstances for us.

I still think that the point remains that even with 8 missiles and a maximum of 40 warheads, 8 missiles gives allows for up to 96 MIRVs with 40 of them containing nuclear warheads. This is still an effective deterrent that is in a different league compared with TLAM-N.

Well, switching a trident to tomahawk on an Ohio increases the number of missiles seven-fold, (7)
so that should cover the far more missiles part.

In part, but only for those targets within range. To cover widely spaced threats you’d need more submarines on station, each one with a full complement of missiles.

Mrmalaya: good point. It has to be assumed that a deterrent sub will never fire any secondary weapon except to avoid its own destruction, or after it has fired its nuclear missiles & has no more deterrent function.

I would point out that John gave no source for the 8 missiles figure he quoted. I’ve else seen 10 and 14 quoted in previous debates on this issue, so there is no reason to suspect his figure is any more correct! We should have enough missiles left to fill 2 subs completely, and probably a 3rd, not that deployment rotation would permit unless one was armed in dock. On warheads, the stockpile has gone down, but production capacity has gone up.

“Therefore the number of warheads on board each submarine would be reduced from a maximum of 48 to a maximum of 40, the number of operational missiles on the Vanguard Class submarines would be reduced to no more than eight, and the number of operational warheads reduced from fewer than 160 to no more than 120.”

Source here

I would have thought that neighbouring countries would be infinitely more bothered by the prospect of fall out from your nuclear strike than the fact that the missiles flew through their airspace.:eek:

On the subject of multi use submarines. Are we effectively saying that this boat can give away it’s position in some circumstances despite the fact it’s still a deterrent sub. It’s not like the US situation, where they can convert some boomers to fire TLAM and keep a deterrent force secret elsewhere on the globe.

Well, switching a trident to tomahawk on an Ohio increases the number of missiles seven-fold, (7)
so that should cover the far more missiles part.

The issue is range for one, some remote parts of this world can’t be reached by tomahawks from sea.

Another reason is that these nuke-tipped CM may need to fly over another country’s territory,
that you aren’t fighting, and few will be the countries that would want that.

Then there is the fact that tomahawk is getting old in the tooth, a new LO cruise missile will need to be developed.

100 conventional TLAM´s cost less than a pair of Eurofighter Typhoon´s, and the launching vectors are already on the RN ORBAT.
The only expensive bit of hardware would be the nuclear warhead, couple that with the fact that you wouldnt need three new dedicated nuclear submarines (“Bombers” in RN “parlance”) and the cost of the nuclear CASOM would be a very tiny fraction of something like “Trident GB”.

Shorter range missiles, single warheads, much easier to stop. You’d therefore need
1) To launch far more missiles to get the same number of warheads on target.
2) More submarines on patrol to cover the same number of targets, & therefore more subs in the fleet (already covered by Frosty).

And would not be able to reach some potential targets at all, because they’re too far from the sea.

After reading up on a few reports I have found that in 2009 the then Government announced that the Vanguard replacement would have 12 tubes not the 8 that is often quoted. Does anyone know if there has ever been a subsequent announcement stating that the number would in fact be 8? I am still of the theory that the common missile compartment will comprise of 12 tubes but 8 of those will be used for Trident and the other 4 for different use. The other query I have is that UK is not a signatory of SORT so can we still put as many warheads in each of our missiles as we would like unlike the US who have to limit themselves to 4 or 5?

@Jonesy
Completely agree. Also there seems to be a worrying trend of people forecasting “there won’t be anymore big wars” usually followed shortly by a massive war. Resources could be a big factor as you say, if they could take them by force then they could be tempted to do so.

@Frosty
I would point out that John gave no source for the 8 missiles figure he quoted. I’ve else seen 10 and 14 quoted in previous debates on this issue, so there is no reason to suspect his figure is any more correct! We should have enough missiles left to fill 2 subs completely, and probably a 3rd, not that deployment rotation would permit unless one was armed in dock. On warheads, the stockpile has gone down, but production capacity has gone up.

You are perhaps aware that our present Trident bombers only carry eight missiles these days, and of course only one is on patrol at any one time? Furthermore, the missiles are detargeted, and would apparently take a week to get into firing configuration? The fact is that the “continuous at sea deterrent” isn’t what it was, and for good reason, neither is the threat. I hardly think we would need 5 SSNs patrolling the seas as bombers, deterring I don’t know what.

The fact is that the cold war ended in 1991, with the end of the USSR. Since then, the government has identified, rightly in my view, expeditionary warfare as our most likely requirement. Yet we have cut the surface fleet by over a half, ditto the SSN force, lost LRMP coverage completely, and are doing without carrier strike for a decade. Despite this, you seem to think that the only part of the defence profile which should not be cut is the one part which was entirely dedicated to a cold war role, and whose use must be seen as extremely unlikely. I would also point out, because none of the pro-Trident side seem able to accept it, that the cost of the deterrent is going to come out of the defence budget. There is going to be no extra funding for it. In the circumstances, the military simply must go for the simplest, cheapest option, which will nonetheless deter any enemy we are likely to face in the coming years.

Even with 8 missiles it is still 96 MIRV with up 48 nukes and if the threat level was raised we could very quickly increase to 16 missiles 192 MIRV and about 100 warheads.

8 Trident missiles is still in a totally different league compared with a SLCM capability.

Yes this was a system born out of Cold War and relations with Russia may have improved but that is not the real threat. The real threat is that of nuclear weapons themselves and in fact the proliferation of those weapons has actually increased not decreased. Do you know who will have them and be able to threaten us with for them for decades to come?

Having a true deterrent capability is the best option to protect us from this threat.

John

When will you look beyond the end of your nose?. Deterrent until 2060+. Just because today the missiles are pointed elsewhere doesn’t mean they will be tomorrow. Or would you like to guarantee that one for us right now?.

You seem to accept that in the Cold War there was a need to provide deterrence to stop a potential aggressor attempting to coerce us with nuclear weapons or to give them serious pause for thought before they fired them on whatever grounds?. Is that a fair read on what you have said?.

Where do you think those missiles and nuclear warheads have gone?. Some of the overkill has been thinned out sure but a nuclear capability still exists that is an order away from being trained on us. At the moment its unlikely that it will, but, only a fool would assure you that we will never be in a confrontational stance against Russia again. Iskanders to engage BMD sites in E.Europe ring any bells?. The wider dismay in the Ukraine (at least the Russified bits) of the leanings towards NATO?. Individually they are issues of little consequence but the fact that there is an undercurrent of opinion over there that needs to oppose the US/NATO perceived hegemony is undeniable.

I’m not saying a new Cold War is just round the corner I’m saying that issues WILL crop up more and more…not least over resources as they become scarcer….and there is no guarantee that the current status we all enjoy were everyone is best friends with everyone else in the world will continue. If the anti-deterrent crowd get their way we’ll be stood there all deer-in-the-headlights as we realise that we have adversary states with nuclear warheads pointed at us and we gave ours up to save a few quid in the hopes that the govt might give us our Top Gun fantasy….or another dozen poorly performing hospitals….or prserved another few criminally mismanaged banks!

Once again John….the defence budget, over 30 years, CAN withstand the costs of successor SSBN, and UK manufacturin will certainly benefit from the investment (you know that bit you keep ignoring!). We have the spending hump from CVF and JCA (JCA shared with the RAF budget allocation as STOVL allows for flexibility remember?) then, after that, we have T26. After that point we will be running on still-current AAW destroyers, brand new frigates, carriers still with 20-30yrs left in ’em and still pretty new SSNs in the shape of the A-class boats. Scheduled properly we can slot the finalised SSBN build in after the T26 funding crunch subsides a bit and a little bit after Astute-7, HMS Ajax, is finished towards the latter part of the 2020’s.

Follow on SSBN isnt to blame for you not getting the catapults/traps you wanted to see on CVF John. Cancelling it isnt going to get the spend on conventional arms you hope for. Give it up.