I agree Grim people like ourselves are rare we go out and investigate things rather than simply being sheep. Then we weigh it up with pro’s and con’s and make our choice.

On renewables did you know you would need thousands of the largest wind turbines yet in existence working at full capacity to generate the same power as one single commercial reactor. When you consider power stations typically have 2 such reactors the numbers start to get insane. The land area taken up by turbines or even sea area becomes unrealistic, but the average person does not go and investigate this. Fair enough i might be an odd fellow for doing so but i refuse to take information by the media at face value.

AI hey,

1. It’s Marte Mk2 AFAIK, yes it can be course corrected but an updated ASROC could do the same. Missile carried torps is not an area which i am familiar but i shall go and do some learning.

2. Nice to see an Absalon fan 🙂 I would still go with it mainly down to costs and capability. I would use the T45 hull for C1, C2 would be diffrent to save costs as Absalon is a ready made cheaper alternative. It could share systems etc but not the hull. My preferred C3 proposal would be the BMT Venator, i like the design very much although i would want a hangar for a FLynx. The VT proposal does not feel right as you said to me it seems more like a couple of containers on a deck with no real thought to replacing highly thought out specialist mine warfare vessels so i get the same jive.

Mortars on a ship i suppose it would give some nice practise but practically no. Remember you will also have 50.cals, GPMG’s, miniguns etc.

I agree surface units need AShM but all i am saying is the best way to sink a ship is via a sub. Missiles are good if they can be made to have a terminal video feedback to identify the target. You could fit the extra VLS cells as A70’s and fill them with aster 30 and then fill them with Scalp Naval when you wanted i would not mind doing that at all. You dont have to tell the bean counters that you could use LAM’s let them work that out.

You speak the truth PAAMS has been paid for and deploying it on only 6 ships is lunacy. CEC would be great. I would have C1 with Aster 30 and SAMPSON that could fire an Aster in support of a C2 that has targeted it. I would still like more T45’s and if C1 was based on a T45 hull this could be financially viable.

Hold a referendum to ask the people if they wanted to keep nukes?? Basically you dont have a formed opinion so you would ask the people? Your reply has got me confused.

Britain is no republic your right, it’s a constitutional monarchy and has been that way for yonks. We are one of the few countries to have a stable political system over along period of time.

Sinking skimmers is best done IMHO by subs for bigger boats and choppers/aircraft for the smaller ones. I dont like the Italian Marte seems like a half arsed attempt at a decent missile. I would rather go with the NSM and ASROC for a gd combo this allows commonality between platforms:)

C1 i would keep the forrard mast and maybe go down the route of a Thales I-mast type idea. Failing that knock SAMPSON off it’s perch and stick Artisan on it, but if we are stuck with 6 T45 i would want to keep SAMPSON for better AAW cover. 2 CIWS and CAMM are what i would want better layered protection against small boats etc.

C2 for me would be the off the shelf Absalon *Whips out danish flag again and waves it* i think i have already told of it’s suitability.

My C3 would be the VT 100metre C3 proposal, but with a double boat ramp under the work deck to launch are recover RHIBS and any unmanned veichles. EDIT: Hmm it has a boat ramp according to a press release, my mistake:) i would like it to have a hangar though for a FLynx as the chopper will be one of it’s most important and flexible assets. Can people send me some info and links about the proposal by VT.

I like the german mauser as well seems like an excellent weapon i agree with you there but i think 2 on each side of all the FSC fleet would be adequate.

The Arsenal Ship SSGN i would like like people have discussed it’s virtues before such as unleashing 100 odd harpoon at an enemy fleet and watch them sink. I personally like the TLAM wall idea myself just TLAM every viable target and the war might be done.

The T45 really needs it’s CIWS and Harpoon, i agree with no TLAM tho. I would not bother fitting more VLS cells 32 Aster 30 and 64 CAMM seem good enough coupled with 2 CIWS. If i was to fit more cells i would have more Aster 30. But i would also build 6 more T45 if not my C1 would keep SAMPSON and add Aster 30 as i have already mentioned.

I must say it’s refreshing to have people making valid points about this issue rather than simply saying yes or being a raving hippy.

My points are as follows:

1. We need 4 subs minimum i would prefer 6 as this would allow 2 to be run as SSGN’s which i think will be useful in future.

2. Having one sub versus 4 will still cost roughly the same to guard, It’s faslane that is guarded and coulport not the subs themselves therefore that point is rendered mute.

3. The yanks new missile could be years late and massively over budget they seem to have as good a track record as we do. Hopefully it does come in on time and budget for all out sakes, I would not be suprised if a missile has already been designed as if you look at the US budget over the last few years it has went up massively and there are a few dark patches where the money vanishes.

4. I would rather the number of missile tubes stayed the same, at 16 for the SSBN and went up to 24 for an SSGN this allows a decent amount of firepower to be carried by either type.

5. The USA and UK are SLEP’ing trident for how long nobody really knows. I think things will progress with haste once the Russians get their beluva missile working and the chinese get more subs in the water that may add some fuel to urgency.

6. The common launcher design should be finished before the subs need retiring, ideally we should start designing the rest of a new sub now and incorporate the launcher later. But if we are using a stretched astute doseign which i fear we might then thats not going to work. I think a new sub should be designed taking advantage of everything technology has to offer. A double hulled design seems to be said as the USA’s preferred route as it would be more survivable and carry a larger payload.

My personal opinions have already been expressed in my earlier comment. But i would like 6 Vanguard replacments built so that they could be used for SSGN’s the USA will be going down this route as well to replace the current ohio class that have been converted.

Using a common design for both raises the problem of the number of tubes the US ohio missile subs have 24 tubes 22 of which now hold 7 TLAM the other 2 are lock-out chambers for special forces and will also be used for sub-launched unmanned veichles in future. I think 24 or more tubes are needed for a viable SSGN as this allows 154 TLAM to be loaded, a lot i know but consider taking on a country without nukes. I wouuld target every military installation in that nation and destroy it which would need a few hits each.

The thing is that hit comes over a long period of time the £50 billion it’s supposed to cost for a new deterrent will be spread over at least 25 years or so, That amounts to a paltry £2bln a year compare that to other Goverment expenditure it’s not even on the list.

I am also for a larger more capable defense force but i personally would concentrate on Naval power, i for one notice that we are an Island nation and my preferred foreign policy route is keeping out of other people’s business to a certain extent. I would not keep out of everything and sit on my hands but use my naval forces to protect myself, my allies, train freindly forces and take part in some conflict prevention measures.

Duck and run i tell you philbob, This is a monster of a question and it could turn ugly.

I will give my personal opinion of this matter, people can accept it or comment back.

The big table point: I think the UK should keep it’s SSBN fleet as it allows the UK a place at the top table if you wish to call it that. The reason for this is simple without a nuclear capability why would a nation of 60 million people with a small armed forces be at the table? What would we bring but a load of rhetoric.

Long term: Fundamentaly having a nuclear capability keeps the UK a serious nation in the eyes of other nations, we are one of the few nations to have a serious and credible nuclear capability. The main reason d’etre i see for a deterrence is just that, to deter any nation state that may wish to do harm to the United Kingdom you may say that there is no threat to the United Kingdom currently but can you see many years into the future? i can’t.

The mid-term: Even if the current SSBN’s are replaced and the United Kingdom in future decides to disarm then they could easily be converted into SSGN’s this in part solves the argument for me. SSGN’s can deter other nations only if they are a non-nuclear power and are either lesser or have parity with the UK conventionally. The threat of a large number of cruise missiles taking out a countries infrastructure would make that nation think twice before doing anything that may provoke a reaction. In some ways an SSGN has more realistic deterrent than an SSBN as it would be more plausible to use large numbers of conventional weapons rather than a singular nuclear weapon. But many SSGN’s would be needed due to the shorter range and lesser effect of conventional weapons. The problem however is when nations even without nuclear weapons could defeat you in a conventional war. What do you do then roll over and die?

The bin it problem: If we binned the nuclear capabilty it would save the nation lots of money in people’s eyes. But compared to other expenditure a nuclear capability is tiny in cost. Furthermore to offset this loss in credibility the UK would have to build up to a realistic level conventional forces however, this will cost more overall than a nuclear detterent. The SSGN route is also very costly as this would require lots of cruise missiles to be stored, maintained and upgraded at regular intervals.

A side note i live close to where the UK bases it’s nuclear capabilty in Faslane it does not trouble me to have these weapons close by. If the cold war turned hot i would only see a flash of light as the Clyde valley is full of primary and secondary targets so it would soon be over for me.

Could people also try to restrain themselves from stupid brash remarks and try to have constructive debate about this issue. Sorry Philbob i know this is your thread but it’s something i think needs said. Also what are your views on this matter?