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

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

So Astute Class can carry 38 torpedoes or TLAM even if 20 of these were dedicated for TLAM-N you would need 5 SSNs within range (some targets will simply be out of range all together) to get close to the numbers you are talking about. Even by doing this the Astute Class would only be able to carry 18 conventional weapons. How many SSNs would we have in service to have to keep 5 in range of a particular target while undertaking other taskings? I believe it is total madness to think that TLAM could be an adequate deterrent on the cheap. For it to be even close to a deterrent it would probably cost more than a SLBM system.

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.

John,

Once again….deterrence isnt something you can pick up and put down when you feel like it. If we need to have it in the future it has to be maintained NOW. That means starting work on designing successor submarines, while the V-boats are still in fully in service, that means keeping the crews trained and competent in what is a very difficult discipline.

There is no deterrent system in service, or publicly acknowledged as under design, that could be installed on an SSN at this time anywhere in service with anyone. None.

As I said initially on this it may be possible to fit, perhaps, 4 SLBM-style missile tubes into a future SSN for TLAM/UAV/SF when not used for SLBM carriage. We would need to independently develop our own ‘Small-SLBM’ design though so that we could pack enough weapons into the tubes to represent a deterrent effect. An SSN with 4 Tridents, for example, would not offer a great deal of flexibility in targetting nor, perhaps, quite enough warheads and pen-aids to be assured of getting through on a very well defended target.

In theory though I’ve no problem with them binning successor-SSBN if the Follow-on SSN

a) would be configured with at least 4 SLBM tubes for, perhaps, 12 Small-SLBM’s (think navalised Midgetman) each with single MARV and multi-penaid capability, or, tactical configuration when not in ‘bomber mode’.

and

b) wont lose any of its tactical stealth and maneuverability by the addition of the VL strategic missile bay.

It wont be cheaper than Successor SSBN and it wont do anything for Carrier Strike right now, but, we will have a more flexible deterrent. One last point to consider though, and one I’ve noted on this site before, is that there is an inherent safety in Trident.

It is, after all, a very big hammer and as with such big hammers they are only wielded when absolutely necessary. You give the politicians a tool which is more easily used, more ‘tailored’ to the strategic situation we face right now, then you have to recognise the risk that some brightspark will like the idea of using it. In my book here’s to big lumpen Trident and the fervent hope that a really ‘useful’ nuclear warhead never appears in our inventory!.

This is fantasy stuff.

You have got into the mindset, it appears, that a nuclear deterrent must be SLBM based. As I have said, that made sense in the cold war, when the target was Moscow and we all knew it. Who is being deterred now? Who do you think will need to be deterred in the next few decades? You have to make a judgement, based on what you think needs doing, and what you can afford. To my mind, developing a British nuclear warhead for Tomahawks, and several extra Astutes, gives a flexible and affordable system which will deter any nuclear threat Britain will face in the next decades, namely rogue states such as Iran, Pakistan, North Korea etc. If we do have to face off these states, we won’t be alone, as ever the USA will play the lead role, but a decent British Astute flotilla armed with nuclear Tomahawks will be a valuable addition to the mix. One Trident bomber, less so I would argue.

You have failed to address the vital point: there is no extra money for Trident, it has to come out of the defence budget. That is an absurdity, and will mean that most of the budget for new equipment in the 2020s will be spent on a cold war weapon system Britain neither needs nor can afford.

Please outline what Irans strategic and tactical capabilities will be in 2045 John. Then, please, inform us as to how cancelling the Trident follow on will be guaranteed to lead to more funds going into the platforms you mention.

Iran is just an example. If it is nuked, it’s more likely that Israel will be doing the nuking than us. At the moment, and for the foreseeable future, we do not face an existential crisis. The cold war is over, the USSR is gone. The forces which we need, and which will be used, are expeditionary in nature. Carriers, amphibious, and SSNs with Tomahawks.

As to funding, you seem to think the government is saying to MoD “Here is £15 billion, go and build a new Trident force.” Instead, the government is saying “Go and build a new Trident force out of your existing budget.” There’s no new money for Trident. If we want to keep a nuclear deterrent, and I think we should, it should be as affordable as possible. For a fraction of Trident we can build several more Astutes, and thus have a decent fleet of SSNs, any of which can launch nuclear armed Tomahawks. I’d say that is a better and more flexible way of deploying nuclear weapons that having one Trident bomber continuing its endless cold war patrol in the North Atlantic, deterring the ghost of the USSR.

@John K

Whether a TLAM has been downed or not is irrelevant. Almost any SAM can down them as they are subsonic, not very agile, and low flying comparable to a very easy target drone. The TLAMs launched have been launched in vast numbers against almost defenceless enemies. I suppose if you are suggesting that Britain use it’s deterrent in vast numbers (many hundreds) against a useless enemy then you may have a point, but that is not what the rest of us are discussing! A nuclear TLAM can do a lot more damage than a conventional one, and so justifies more investment by the enemy in stopping it.

A nuclear TLAM provides ZERO deterrence against any country with decent radar coverage, some fighters on alert and some SAM systems. Hell, even Iran could probably shoot down most (or maybe all!) of a wave of a few tens of TLAMs if they know each one had a bucket of sunshine onboard!

I would have thought that the question whether a TLAM has ever been shot down is highly relevant to this discussion. And I dispute the assertion that a nuclear TLAM provides “ZERO deterrence” against a country with good air defences. It would not take many nuclear TLAMs to get through even if some were shot down, and the question is, do you take the risk?

The bottom line is that Trident is the best nuclear deterrent we could have, but does it make sense to invest so much money in a Rolls-Royce system when we are cutting vital projects, such as LRMP and carrier strike, which are going to actually be used in the next few decades? In an ideal world I’d go for Trident, but in the world we have we need to be more flexible. It’s not 1980 and we don’t have to deter the USSR any more.

Well, you have decided TLAM does not give deterrence, not me. Have any TLAMs ever been shot down? I don’t know the answer, but I do know that hundreds if not thousands have been successfully fired. I think the knowledge that Britain had a fleet of TLAM armed nuclear subs would give more than enough deterrent for any purpose Britain could need. Seriously, if we can’t afford a catapult system for carriers which will certainly see action over their lifespan, spending £15 billion on a cold war weapon which will never be used strikes me as crazy.

Given that we apparently cannot afford a catapult system for HMS Prince of Wales, I find the Conservative’s obsession with Trident baffling. The purchase of Polaris and Trident made great sense during the cold war as part of the deterrent to the USSR, but I am assuming now that we do not need a system which can penetrate Moscow’s anti-missile defences. I would much rather see 12 or more Astutes, each of which could carry a couple of nuclear armed Tomahawks, or you could have one Astute designated as a bomber with a dozen or so on board. We could thus have a flexible system for carrying nuclear wepaons, allied to an increase in the number of nuclear subs we actually need.

There is very little chance of Britain ever using nuclear weapons, and if we do, it will not be against a superpower. The possibility that our carrier force will see action in their service lives is 100%, yet we will not spend the money to equip them properly, but the government would rather spend billions on submarines which will never be used. The omnishambles continues.