PDA

View Full Version : Trident to carry on


Razor61
21st Jun 2006, 19:55
bbc.co.uk

Brown signals support for Trident

Trident will be decommissioned by about 2024
Gordon Brown is expected to signal that he wants to keep and renew Britain's independent nuclear deterrent.
The Trident missile system and the Vanguard submarines that carry them need replacing by 2024 and a decision is set to be taken in the next year.

Mr Brown is expected to use his Mansion House speech to indicate his personal commitment to renewing Trident.

Estimates of the cost vary from £10bn to £25bn, depending on what form the new missiles or submarines take.

As well as voicing fears over the cost, critics say Trident is outdated, designed to deal with the threat posed by the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and should now be stood down.


Labour had a manifesto commitment to retain an independent nuclear deterrent but it only applies until the next general election.

Mr Brown, seen as the most likely next prime minister, will speak of retaining the deterrent in the long term.

It is thought he wants anti-nuclear campaigners to know that he is just as committed to replacing Trident as Tony Blair.

'No moral reason'

BBC political editor Nick Robinson said Mr Brown's words would take the heat off the prime minister, who could have produced "uproar" if he had made the same announcement.

The government's position is that decisions on updating or replacing Trident are likely to be needed during the current Parliament.

A Ministry of Defence spokesman said: "No decisions have been taken on the replacement of Trident, either in principle or detail."

When we face nuclear threat, to decide on a new Trident replacement is beginning a new nuclear arms race

Kate Hudson
Chairwoman, CND

But the decision is expected to be taken in months rather than years.

Kate Hudson, chairwoman of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, said she feared Mr Brown's words would close down the debate on Trident promised by the government.

"We were hoping that any potential future prime minister would stick by the commitments made last year by then Defence Secretary John Reid for a full public and parliamentary debate," she told BBC News.

"Our feeling is statements like this from someone as significant as Gordon Brown pre-empts that debate."

Statesman's spin?

Ms Hudson said this was the moment to start multi-lateral disarmament talks.

"At this point, when we face no nuclear threat, to decide on a new Trident replacement is beginning a new nuclear arms race," she said.

Labour MP Ian Gibson, an opponent of Trident, said many young Labour backbenchers had been weaned on CND and had not lost those early political views.

"So it may not be as easy [to agree to replace Trident] as people might think because the chancellor says so," he told BBC News 24.



The Conservatives accused Mr Brown of "spin" designed to make him look statesmanlike.


Shadow defence secretary Liam Fox said: "His words are exactly the same as those in the 2005 manifesto and are not new.

"The chancellor is reheating an old pledge to retain the current nuclear deterrent but he is not committing to replacing the independent nuclear deterrent when it reaches the end of its current life."

'Squandered'

The Tories highlighted that in 1984 Mr Brown had called Trident "unacceptably expensive, economically wasteful, and militarily unsound".

Liberal Democrat defence spokesman Nick Harvey said the British people deserved plans for a scheme that could cost £25bn to undergo full scrutiny.

"Gordon Brown's posturing on Trident is smothering the national debate that this government promised to the British people," he said.

Former Labour Cabinet minister Peter Mandelson said he had not read the speech but added: "I'm sure the speech will spark a very interesting national debate on the subject."

At prime minister's questions on Wednesday, Labour's Gordon Prentice, (Pendle), told MPs it would be an "absolute outrage" if billions were "squandered" on a new generation of nuclear weapons without a vote by MPs.

Mr Blair replied: "There should be the fullest possible debate on this issue. I am sure there will be."


He might well retain Trident but i bet he will cut the number of subs and missiles per sub to an absolute minimum.....

Oh, that's been done with pretty much all of the Navy already :(

Not_a_boffin
22nd Jun 2006, 08:31
It would be nice if the mistake last time round (all the procurement off the dark blue budget for a truly national asset) was avoided.

Pigs pre-flighted, holding at runway.....

BlueWolf
22nd Jun 2006, 08:36
Yeah, scrap it. There'll be plenty of time to debate whether or not Britain should have a deterrent when the PLA Navy is sailing up the Thames, won't there?

And BTW Trident isn't independent, is it? :confused:

Zoom
22nd Jun 2006, 08:44
Scrap Trident, cancel the new carriers and that's pretty much the end of the RN. What's left can be subsumed by the RAF as the Marine Branch. Ah, but haven't we been here quite recently?

Skunkerama
22nd Jun 2006, 09:20
Stick to what your good at crabs, drinking tea and bothering welsh farmers. The Royal Marines will stick with the Andrew thanks, would look a tad naff doing beach landings in one of your air sea rescue boats.

As the US have proved, carrier battle groups are the way ahead, what with Ocean, Bulwark and a couple of carriers I think the UK will be a bit better off than we are now, as long as the RAF uses it's FJ's to fly off the carriers of course.

miles offtarget
22nd Jun 2006, 10:09
I seem to remember that the first Trident came into service in 1994, so what's the expected service life these subs ? I take it that the other two subs were operational later than that, (95 or 96 ?).

Given that the Vulcan was flying for 40 odd years, we don't get too much for our cash do we ?

Just a thought.

Cheers,

MoT

Vifferpilot
22nd Jun 2006, 11:17
As the US have proved, carrier battle groups are the way ahead, what with Ocean, Bulwark and a couple of carriers I think the UK will be a bit better off than we are now......

As long as you have sufficient land-based assets (AAR, AEW, ECM/ECCM etc, heavy bombers - ie not JSF, etc etc), oh and the war can wait a few months whilst we get one of the carriers back from the yard and sail it at top speed (:\) to the war zone, and as long as the targets aren't too far away cos we may not get AAR and...and...........:rolleyes: :ok:

Skunkerama
22nd Jun 2006, 11:19
I would have thought that they would be around till atleast 2015. It will take us at least 10-15 years to come up with a new system, scrap it after a lot of money is wasted and then buy the US version for twice the amount it would have cost us with the original.

Mad_Mark
22nd Jun 2006, 11:25
It would be nice if the mistake last time round (all the procurement off the dark blue budget for a truly national asset) was avoided.


Does that mean that since the vast majority of the work of the MRA4 will be for the dark blue and green services, rather than light blue, that you'd be happy for the MRA4 procurement budget to be shared out also :confused:

I thought ALL military assets were a TRULY NATIONAL ASSET !!!

MadMark!!! :mad:

miles offtarget
22nd Jun 2006, 13:16
I would have thought that they would be around till atleast 2015. It will take us at least 10-15 years to come up with a new system, scrap it after a lot of money is wasted and then buy the US version for twice the amount it would have cost us with the original.


Sadly true old boy, who remembers AEW Nimrod fiasco ?

IIRC when going through 6FTS at Finingley in 1989, we were told that the final cost of the airframe mod was £1bn each. Not a bad return on investment for a ground trainer that the ab-initio Air Engineers used to start up and shut down.

...and of course we eventually bought the E3 that had been offered to us ten years earlier.

Back to my original point, does anyone know if still have to have the authority of the US President (and considering the mental stability of the baboon who currently holds that office, is this a wise thing), before we can light the blue touch paper on Trident ?

Razor61
22nd Jun 2006, 13:43
Sadly true old boy, who remembers AEW Nimrod fiasco ?
IIRC when going through 6FTS at Finingley in 1989, we were told that the final cost of the airframe mod was £1bn each. Not a bad return on investment for a ground trainer that the ab-initio Air Engineers used to start up and shut down.
...and of course we eventually bought the E3 that had been offered to us ten years earlier.
Back to my original point, does anyone know if still have to have the authority of the US President (and considering the mental stability of the baboon who currently holds that office, is this a wise thing), before we can light the blue touch paper on Trident ?

The British, American made Trident is fitted with British designed MIRV's with British designated targets so surely, although the missiles are manufactured in the USA, should come under the full control of the British? :confused:

or is that why Brown wants an 'independent' deterrent? Because we don't have full control.....

Lazer-Hound
22nd Jun 2006, 13:45
Back to my original point, does anyone know if still have to have the authority of the US President (and considering the mental stability of the baboon who currently holds that office, is this a wise thing), before we can light the blue touch paper on Trident ?

Anyone who knows for real isn't likely to tell us here!:hmm: But it is noticable that politicians asked this in the past have usually dissembled along the lines of "I cannot envisage any circumstance where we'd want to launch and the US wouldn't". Doesn't take a genius to work out that one:rolleyes:

But the real issue isn't whether we can fire them ourselves - if we ever find out, Trident will have failed in its primary purpose, deterrance. The issue is that the USA could, if it so wished, stop supporting the UK deterrent, in which case it would be rendered inoperable in months if not weeks. That's how 'independent' it is.

Lazer-Hound
22nd Jun 2006, 13:47
The British, American made Trident is fitted with British designed MIRV's with British designated targets so surely, although the missiles are manufactured in the USA, should come under the full control of the British? :confused:

or is that why Brown wants an 'independent' deterrent? Because we don't have full control.....

Thye UK Tridents are essentially copies of the US W76 design and utilise a number of US made components.

teeteringhead
22nd Jun 2006, 15:33
... look a tad naff doing a beach assault in one of your air sea rescue boats ... ..at least one would expect the Marine Branch to know the difference between Spain and Gibraltar!! (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1827554.stm)

Violet Club
22nd Jun 2006, 15:51
Is it too late to point out that Gordon said precisely nothing about Trident?

He said 'independent national deterrent' or words to that effect - but he didn't identify any system or solution.

I know it's only words, but words matter - and his struck me as particularly well chosen. The speech was telegraphed as a big vote for Trident...but it wasn't really, was it?

MarkD
22nd Jun 2006, 17:22
I can't imagine a situation where UK would *have* to fire Trident where waiting to ask the US would be an option...

miles offtarget
22nd Jun 2006, 17:44
I'm undecided as to the merits of spending £25bn on a sub launched system, when the likely (?) recipients of a British nuke do not have a credible AD capability.

I doubt whether the Iraninan AD organisation (to pick one example at random) could defend against a decent stand off weapon such as ALCM.

Therefore, as we're not considering anyone with a decent AD infrastructure (such as the Russians, Chinese or possibly the Indians) a threat, wouldn't an ALCM system or the like be equally as effective. Given of course, that the US would sell us some Tomahawks in the first place.

An interesting article in Prospect magazine ran the hypothesis that an unidentified Islamic state targeted the UK with it's first ICBMs in a soviet style 'standing start' attack because a. we are seen very much as an extension of the US's foreign policy, and therefore exert some leverage in Washington due to the special relationship(whatever that is?); and b. if we were to give up our weapons then the US, when it really came down to it, wouldn't sacrifice Birmigham Alabama for Birmingham West Midlands, and the Islamacists would have won a first strike.

Surely, if we don't have absolute control of our sub launched system, it fails to be a deterrent at all. Absolute control over the lesser ALCM option would seem cheaper and preferable ?

Well, it does to me after three glasses of wine, but then again I'm not that bright even when sober.

Your thoughts ?

Cheers,

MoT

NURSE
22nd Jun 2006, 17:50
My reading of it its another Jam tomorrow to extract more cuts today look at the promised programmes for the armed forces how many are likely to come to fruition in the form originally promised or will be subtley down graded in view of cost or changing military circumstances (IE the forces shrinking)

RonO
22nd Jun 2006, 22:52
Matter of public record that services chiefs stated categorically to Parliament defense committee that UK has complete independence in targeting & firing Trident. In response to how long could that last without US cooperation, the answer was as long as the UK could maintain the missiles in working order (currently done stateside). IIRC best guess was at least a year.

Lazer-Hound
22nd Jun 2006, 23:28
Matter of public record that services chiefs stated categorically to Parliament defense committee that UK has complete independence in targeting & firing Trident. In response to how long could that last without US cooperation, the answer was as long as the UK could maintain the missiles in working order (currently done stateside). IIRC best guess was at least a year.

A WHOLE YEAR! So, ample time to design, build, test, produce and bring into service our own SLBM's and warheads. Not forgetting to built the testing ranges, degaussing facilities, maintenance facilities, etc.

Pathetic.

NURSE
23rd Jun 2006, 02:06
how trident replacement will proceed:

Funding will suddenly only be available of either CVF or SSN programme the navy will of course have to decide.
The winner will then go head to head with funding for a Type 22/23 replacement frigate
The winner of that will go head to head with the SSK(N) replacement programme.

At each stage when the Navy agrees to drop a program all savings made to pay or it will be forfeit to the treasury. thus reducing defence spending.

Navaleye
23rd Jun 2006, 13:51
Has anyone seen the new Trident ASM variant due to replace Sub Harpoon?

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/slbm/trident-2-DNSC8906614_JPG.jpg

Wee Weasley Welshman
23rd Jun 2006, 14:11
The UK has complete control of both targeting and launch of the Trident weapon system. The maintenance of the rockets is shared with the work being done by the Americans, thus the capability cannot be maintained for many years without US agreement. A position clearly outlined in serveral Biographies of leading politicians.

Nonetheless through Aldermaston and BNFL the UK retains the ability to make hydrogen bombs and fit them to whatever delivery vehicle they deem fit be that a missile, air drop or Toyota Hi-Lux.

I myself can't see the need for a Strategic nuclear deterrent and would opt for a much cheaper Tactical nuclear deterrent. But then that's way above my pay grade and role and employer and intelligence. I was a firm supporter of Trident.

Cheers

WWW

Archimedes
23rd Jun 2006, 15:31
Has anyone seen the new Trident ASM variant due to replace Sub Harpoon?

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/slbm/trident-2-DNSC8906614_JPG.jpg

Presumably the other member of the synchro pair is obscured by the smoke? :ooh:

BlueWolf
23rd Jun 2006, 23:30
Re. the independence/support thing, couldn't you just take one to bits, find out how it works, and figure out how to do it youselves? Or does "support" involve....other knowledge? :E ;)

Squirrel 41
24th Jun 2006, 11:33
Sorry to be late to this one, I've been away.

Violet Club is spot-on: Gordon Brown did NOT commit to another SLBM system to replace Trident - concentrate on what he actually said:

<snip>
the same strength of national purpose we will demonstrate in protecting our security in this Parliament and the long-term - strong in defence in fighting terrorism, upholding NATO, supporting our armed forces at home and abroad, and retaining our independent nuclear deterrent.
<snip>

So nothing at all about the timescales, the cost, the system or anything else. All the rest is spin from "Treasury sources" and the like. :=

As to the question of whether we should bother at all, that's a rather different thread - if we must, let's just hope that common sense prevails and that whatever platform is used to deliver the capability is MULTIROLE, so that it can be used for something more useful.

S41

WE Branch Fanatic
24th Jun 2006, 12:11
Maybe this article from Richard Beedall will be of interest?

Vanguard SSBN Replacement (http://navy-matters.beedall.com/vanguard-r.htm)

In order to keep costs down, a new submarine design has become unlikely for a Vanguard replacement and current thinking assumes an evolution of the Astute design - indeed BAE Systems Submarines has already examined two variants fitted with an extra hull section. The first includes the fitting external to the pressure hull of sixteen Mark 36 Vertical Launch System tubes for missiles such as Tomahawk, and the second includes four Trident II size (86 inch diameter, 36-feet usable length) missile tubes, installed aft of the fin. The later approach is preferred as the large tubes are extremely versatile, alternative to Trident II SLBM’s they could potentially carry a next generation ballistic missile, a multiple all-up round canister accommodating seven Tomahawk cruise missiles per tube, equipment and swimmer vehicles for special forces, Unmanned Underwater Vehicle’s (UUV’s), deployable decoys and sensors, and even encapsulated Unmanned Air Vehicle’s (UAV’s). While a re-role will not be trivial, the new submarines would certainly be far more flexible than the current SSBN/SSN divide permits.

Squirrel 41
24th Jun 2006, 13:41
WEBF,

With all due respect, an Astute derivate with - count 'em - 4(!) SLBM launch tubes is really pushing the lower limit of what can sensibly be called minimum deterrence. :hmm:

If we have to have this thing - and given the sums of money potentially involved, the onus should be on proponents to prove it - then hanging some sort of advanced ALCM on a multirole airborne platform or SLCM on an SSN seems much more sensible. But if this is the best pro-nuke case that can be made, it's not a very compelling case, is it?

S41

ORAC
4th Jul 2006, 12:35
And while the left complain about us thinking about a Trident replacement, has anyone remarked on Russia´s plans? Note, from the following, that these are seen as a substitute for conventional forces, maintaining the Russian policy that it does not rule out first use...

Back to the Future Cold War

Russia’s weakened military status will invite other countries—specifically, the United States—to push it around, so a new arms buildup is warranted, Russian President Vladimir Putin asserted in his seventh state-of-the-nation address on May 10.

“It is premature to speak of the end of the arms race,” Putin said, noting that the US spends 25 times as much on its military as Russia does. He called for sharp increases in the production of aircraft and ships and said Russia’s military revitalization is already under way.

“A few years ago,” Putin said, “the armed forces were no longer receiving any modern equipment.” He noted that no new ships were built between 1996 and 2000, that exercises were only carried out “on maps,” and that the war in Chechnya illustrated the woeful condition of Russian forces. “It is our task today to make sure that this never happens again,” Putin said, adding that this year saw the start of mass defense equipment procurement for the Defense Ministry’s needs. Taking a page from the US, he said that Russian forces must be able “to simultaneously fight in global, regional, and—if necessary—also in several local conflicts.”

The Russian military is moving away from conscription toward professional troops, and they will see better training, better housing and pay, and greater social prestige, Putin said. He pledged that by 2008, two-thirds of service members will be “professional” military people with service contracts. The Russian military will be reduced to just one million service members, with reductions to come from retirements. Any other cuts will come from the defense bureaucracy; combat units won’t be touched, he insisted.

However, while he promised a more aggressive program of developing top-quality weapons—Putin said half the Russian defense budget will go toward development—he has no intention of allowing a buildup to bankrupt the nation as it did under the Soviet Union. “We should not repeat the mistakes made by the Soviet Union—the mistakes of the Cold War era—either in politics or defense strategy,” he said.

A military buildup won’t come “at the expense of economic and social development. This is a dead-end road that ultimately leaves a country’s reserves exhausted. There is no future in it. ... We should not go after quantity and simply throw our money to the wind.” Instead, Putin explained that Russia will pursue an “asymmetric” strategy to balance the might of the US, by emphasizing a modernized nuclear force.

He said that Russia will do its utmost to preserve its nuclear deterrent, noting that his country will field two new ballistic-missile submarines this year, the first since the Soviet Union went out of business in 1991. A new sub-based missile, called the Bulava, as well as a new land-based intercontinental ballistic missile, called the Topol-M, are equipped with warheads that can maneuver and defeat US strategic defenses, Putin claimed. Work also is under way on “creating unique high-precision weapons systems and maneuverable combat units that will have an unpredictable flight trajectory.”

“Along with the means for overcoming antimissile defenses that we already have, these new types of arms will enable us to maintain ... the strategic balance of forces,” he asserted......

Navaleye
4th Jul 2006, 14:13
Squirrel41, Surely the real question is the number of MIRVs that they carry. At the moment the UK Tridents are supposed to just three. Placing 12 warheads in four missiles gives you a similar result. Now if you have 2 or three such submarines at sea performing they day job (i.e. SSN role) then you have a more flexible and cost effective solution.

vecvechookattack
4th Jul 2006, 15:46
Above all you dont actually have to have a deterant capability....all you have to do is SAY you have a deterant capability....

Poseidon was a good example of that..... we didnt have them until years after we had told everyone they were armed and ready.

WE Branch Fanatic
4th Jul 2006, 16:46
The UK never had Poseidon...........

See this Google Search (http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=uk+poseidon+missile&meta=).

BigBusDriver
4th Jul 2006, 17:19
The UK never had Poseidon...........

Well, there's that deterrent shot to pieces...nice job WEBF...

:E

NURSE
4th Jul 2006, 19:24
Squirrel41, Surely the real question is the number of MIRVs that they carry. At the moment the UK Tridents are supposed to just three. Placing 12 warheads in four missiles gives you a similar result. Now if you have 2 or three such submarines at sea performing they day job (i.e. SSN role) then you have a more flexible and cost effective solution.


The likley hood is we will have 3 Astute class and 2 or 3 modified astute class

WE Branch Fanatic
18th Jul 2006, 21:55
An article by Max Hastings - We need less tosh and more facts for a decision on Trident (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1822265,00.html)