John KJohn for the 3rd time there is no cheaper option than Trident that maintains deterrence that is of higher magnitude of destructive force than Trident or lesser magnitude. The ability to flatten Moscow or not is irrelevant as there is no less powerful system that is available to us cheaper than Trident. If you believe otherwise please tell us what the system is…and TLAM is not a viable option before that floats up again!.
The 20bn figure for Trident is for the submarines, warheads and basing. Remove that and the only things that happen are that we end up with four less submarines, the Astutes shift to Guz, Faslane/Coulport gets closed and BAE close Barrow.
The issue you seem to have a pathological need to rant about doesnt get changed a whit. In fact things get far worse for us conventionally as, not only do we lose a useful naval base, the next time we want nuclear Fleet subs we have to spend huge sums with the Yanks or the French to buy their designs built in their yards. That is money that goes straight out of the economy…not kept largely inside as with Barrow.
Your saying that SLCM are not an option does not make it true. Nor does not building Trident boats mean that Barrow closes, if you decide to build more SSNs.
The reason I mention the ability to flatten Moscow is because that is what Polaris and Trident were bought for. They made sense in the context that that is what we wanted nuclear weapons for, though we also had a large number of other nuclear weapons, such as free fall bombs and nuclear artillery, for other uses. In saying that the only nuclear weapons it is worth having are the 4 SSBNs of the Cold War era you are failing to think creatively. Four new Tridents would indeed be nice if the money was there, and that’s the rub. The cost of Trident could be such that we lose vital conventional capabilities which we need, in return for a notional nuclear capability which we do not.
John KSarcasm doesn’t serve your argument well.
If your truly believe that the Trident money is ringfenced and won’t affect the rest of the navy then fine, that’s your belief, I happen to believe you are wrong.
Similarly, if you can’t see that 4 SSBNs represented a much smaller proportion of the navy of 1968 than the navy of 2012, again, fine. If you think that a navy reduced in size by about 80 to 90% can afford 4 SSBNs just as in 1968, again, fine. I don’t agree with you, and fear that the RN will be left with 4 SSBNs and very little else, but so long as Britain can blow up the world and Cameron can pose as a statesman, maybe that’s fine by you. I have a different opinion, but if you think your sarcastic comments advance your argument you are very much mistaken.
John KI think you will find that nothing is beyond inter-service squabbling!
John KIt doesn’t work like that. There is no fixed proportion of defence spending allocated to each service. The navy doesn’t have to find the money for Trident from the navy budget: there’s a Trident budget. If the Trident budget is ring-fenced & the MoD budget isn’t, any cuts will be apportioned wherever the MoD decides, not all loaded onto the RN.
Dream on, the fact is there is only so much money allocated to defence, and Trident has to come out of it. The Royal Navy wasn’t even able to make the case to keep Harriers, if you think the army and, especially, RAF will allow the RN to get away with Trident and no cuts to the fleet you are inhabiting an alternative, and better, reality.
John KHere you go again.
I’ve just compared a post-cuts RN with a Spanish navy which has yet to feel much impact from cuts (they’ve just begun: mothballing PdA is the start, not the end), & you get silly.
We’re talking alternate realities here. I think you’re on a different planet.
First of all I note you have picked up on the example of Spain, the weakest of the three, rather than France or Italy. Secondly, I agree the Spanish Navy is likely to be cut due to their economic disaster, but as things stand, their surface fleet is really not so far from ours, and they are certainly not planning to build SSBNs.
As an illustration, look at the respective strengths of the Royal Navy and the Spanish Navy in 1968, when the Royal Navy took over the deterrent role. The Royal Navy that year had 3 fleet carriers, 2 helicopter carriers, 5 SSNs, 37 diesel subs, 2 LPDs, 3 cruisers, 6 guided missile destroyers, 16 destroyers and 68 frigates, for a total of 142 major warships. The Spanish Navy had 1 helicopter carrier, 1 cruiser, 8 diesel subs, 20 destroyers, 12 frigates and 6 corvettes, a total of 48 ships inferior in most respects to the RN’s.
In that context, the 4 SSBNs of the Polaris force does not look out of place, though as I have pointed out, it ended up costing the RN its fleet carriers. We now have a navy with no carriers, no cruisers, no diesel subs, 6 destroyers rather than 22 and 13 frigates rather than 68, and yet you think the nuclear component should be exactly the same as in 1968, 4 SSBNs. Well, its a point of view I suppose, though I would not like to contemplate which planet it comes from…
John KJohn
You seem to have a talent for finding the most irrelevant of points. Once again there is no direct connection between our conventional force mix and our nuclear deterrent….no matter how tightly you cling on to that illusion it will not make it reality. Cancelling Trident is in no way guaranteed to put that frigate off Somalia!!!.
Where do you think the money comes from? I am not saying that £20 bn saved on Trident will be spent on the conventional fleet, I am saying that £20 bn spent on Tident will come from the Royal Navy’s funding, and it will have to be found somewhere. If you can’t see how preposterous it is that a navy which has too few ships to carry out some of its most basic functions is meant to be landed with the bill for a Cold War era Moscow busting nuclear missile force, then so be it.
John KSorry but which of the 3 nations you mentioned above is going to be operating 2 state of the class carriers???? NONE
The CdeG is the only decent carrier in Europe and we will have 2, very adaptable for mission, carriers
Nick
P.S. I agree with Jonesy arguements regarding Son Of/Trident
You are an optimist! There is no proof that we will ever operate two carriers, all that is happening is that for contractual reasons, two are being built. This government is so stupid and sea blind that they have admitted that if they could have broken the contracts, they would have cancelled one carrier. The carrier which will be operated now depends entirely on the F35B, and again it is a leap of faith to state that it will ever go into production, or that we will be able to afford aircraft which are looking to cost about $200 million each. You will recall that Polaris and its associated costs lead to the demise of CVA01 and with it British fleet carrier aviation. Who is to say that Trident MkII wil not do the same to CVF01 in an era of dwindling defence budgets?
John KSpain? One light (17000 tons) STOVL carrier being laid up because of lack of money for a refit, one part-time-STOVL-capable LHD, two LPDs 2/3rd the size of ours (one currently active), five destroyers significantly less capable than our six, a grand total of six frigates (i.e. fewer than half our numbers, & again, less capable), three small & old diesel subs active (to be replaced by four new ones building – if there’s the money to finish & operate them), & a grand total of two replenishment ships, with a combined tonnage equal to RFA Orangeleaf, & three small transports with a combined capacity less than one Point-class. “On a par with or below”? In what alternative universe?
The only thing I think the Armada has the edge in is the Meteoro-class OPVs.
Let’s see what the Royal Navy looks like in a few years if it has to fund the massive costs of Trident. We may look back at a fleet of 13 frigates and 6 destroyers with nostalgia.
John KI’m sorry but I’m seeing a lot of complacency here. A minimum deterrent is one thing, having four Trident SSBNs is another. When your conventional fleet is on a par with or below the likes of France, Italy and Spain, you have got to rethink your position.
Nothing about this government leads me to trust them on defence. Cameron’s insistence on Trident seems to me to be more of a political stance aimed at making Britain look big, than a thought out strategy. We want to have the capacity to destroy a large chunk of the planet, but can’t afford a frigate to patrol the West Indies or the coast of Somalia? How does that even begin to make sense?
John KI very much doubt that in the post Cold War world, Trident is the cheapest “minimal” deterrent we could have. It is a super system, but far from minimal, unless your definition of “minimal” is a secure second strike against Moscow, which is no longer the case.
John KIf the UK considers a land based or cruise missile based solution then I would argue dropping nuclear all together as anything else is not worth it without vast expenditure.
Have you never heard the saying “the best is the enemy of the good”? If you are really of the opinion that the only nuclear deterrent worth having is four Trident SSBNs then I’d have to disagree with you.
John KCASD with Trident successor is the cheapest most effective way to maintain a minimum second strike capability. Something which is all the more important now Nuclear weapons have proliferated beyond the Security council powers.
That is clearly not the case. Trident is a a fantastic missile system which ensures second strike capability against a target defended by ABMs, ie Moscow. That is why we bought it during the Cold War. It was the right tool for the job we wanted then. But seriously, ask yourself is that the job we need nuclear weapons for now? In the context of conventional forces slashed to less than half they were at the end of the Cold War, is a new generation Trident really the weapon to maintain a minimum deterrent? Can you not see the contradiction of scrapping our Nimrod force just as it was about to enter service, aircraft which would have been of immense value each and every day, and yet still planning to maintain a gold standard nuclear deterrent?
John KI quite like the sound of what you are proposing. The problem is, that’s not what the government is planning, which is pretty much a re-run of the existing Trident fleet. It is clear enough that this government is quite ignorant about defence matters. Any administration which could cut up Nimrods which were finally ready for service is clearly not fit for purpose. The one thing which does seem to have penetrated their skulls is that if you have Trident you are somehow a great power, and thus they seem wedded to Trident even as they cut our conventional defences to the bone. I can see the day when we have more Trident SSBNs than frigates at this rate.
John KTechnology moves on, who is to say that stealthy SLCMs would not be an option soon? Even with current techology, if even 50% of SLCMs were to get through (which is probably a very low figure) then that sounds like a deterrent to me.
Actually though, we are not too far apart. Like me, you seem to be saying that you disagree with the concept of having 3 or 4 dedicated SSBNs patrolling the North Atlantic on an endless deterrent patrol. Given that our surface fleet is arguably less powerful now than that of Spain or Italy, both of which also have MPAs where we do not, the idea of dedicating scarce resources to rebuilding our Cold War deterrent still strikes me as absurd.
John KAs far as I am aware, no SLCM has ever been shot down. I would use capacity at Barrow to construct more SSNs, which are infinitely more useful than SSBNs, and which can also carry SLCMs at minimal cost. I take your point that if, say, £20 billion were saved by not buying Trident, that does not mean the £20 billion would be available for other defence spending. But look at it another way: the defence budget is very stretched, and the £20 billion for Trident is meant to come out of it. Apparently, we cannot even afford MPAs to protect our existing Trident boats (among other duties). I dread to think what will be sacrificed if we go ahead with the white elephant of Trident.
Sign In
