Four submarines...

[ShotOne]

Two cheers, if only because this is the first mention of anything to do with defence policy by any party amidst the election build-up

[barnstormer1968]

Are you sure?

I seem to remember trident, it's location or replacement being talked about every day for some time.

UKIP have also mentioned increasing the size of the army.

[MPN11]

And the funding for this mega-project will come from ...... <insert answer here>

[ancientaviator62]

MPN11,
the funding will be kickstarted by cancelling the wasteful corrupt foreign aid budget.

[hulahoop7]

The year on year cost is small compared to plenty of scarey budgets on the national expenditure account. But this one guarantees our existence.

[The Old Fat One]

But this one guarantees our existence

:hmm: On any level...I highly doubt it.

PS On a more serious note...if you meant to say it still gives us a measure of clout, I'd agree.

[PapaDolmio]

Maybe put some windows in the new ones to stop them bumping into things?

[aw ditor]

Is that "Normal for Norfolk"?

[Martin the Martian]

And if UKIP increase the size of the Army what will they do all day if we don't get involved in expeditionary warfare? And will the RAF and RN increase proportionally in size as well?

I'm all for a Trident replacement, but if we can't protect the boats from being attacked by other boats because we have done away with our capacity to attack those boats from above the sea, what's the point?

[Shack37]

Two cheers, if only because this is the first mention of anything to do with
defence policy by any party amidst the election build-up


Is there a link to this story? Not having seen/heard it anywhere.

[Shack37]

And if UKIP increase the size of the Army what will they do all day if we
don't get involved in expeditionary warfare? And will the RAF and RN increase
proportionally in size as well?

I'm all for a
Trident replacement, but if we can't protect the boats from being attacked by
other boats because we have done away with our capacity to attack those boats from above the sea, what's the point?


1. Repair flood defences
2. A good question

[Pontius Navigator]

Now do we plan a new base for the new submarines?

Would make some sense, new boats need new infrastructure. Moving south would cut the transport bill moving the warheads from the factory.

[Biggus]

Of course there is also the fact that Scotland will probably be independent by 2020....

[NutLoose]

If Scotland gets independence, Paddy Ashdown will eat my hat.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

In September 55% of Scots voted NO (after an unimpressive and unimaginative NO campaign). If there was Proportional Representation then SNP would have won far fewer seats.

[dagenham]

Here is a prediction

1. Four boats will be planned
2. Snp kick up a fuss so they call me dave will have to look at moving boats to Milford haven to bolster support in Wales
3. This will require an inquiry and so will be a long drawn out affair
4. The delay will be blamed on socialists and so those in the barrow will be riled up
5. The boats will be rolled out as an issue for the next election

But upside if the boats are delayed we might get the MPA

So T.F. Bundy. .... Total f&£)ed but not dead yet....

[Wander00]

Anyone know the economic benefit to Scotland of having the nuke boats up there, and the consequent downside of removing them south

[Lima Juliet]

WEBF

Reference proportional representation. The SNP got 50% of the vote share in the General Election from a 71% turn out. So no clear win either way!

However, with the Trident replacement question, the Greens got a further 1.3% of the vote, so if the question went to Scotland on Trident, on those figures, then Trident would not be welcome by 51.3% of the voters.

LJ

[Lima Juliet]

Reference jobs:

"During a visit to Faslane on 29 October 2012 Defence Secretary Philip Hammond claimed that: “The Faslane complex is the largest employment site in Scotland with over 6500 jobs underpinning the local economy”. A further 1500 jobs would be created at Faslane when the Astute and Trafalgar class fleet submarines moved to the base, he said, with even more jobs generated in the local economy as a result of 'multiplier' effects.

About 3,500 of the jobs at the Clyde base are uniformed Royal Navy personnel, 1,700 are contractors and 1,600 are other civilian employees, most of whom work principally on other aspects of the Navy's submarine programme, rather than Trident."

I'm sure that Milford Haven or Devonport would like the business!

LJ

[Basil]

if we can't protect the boats from being attacked by other boats because we have done away with our capacity to attack those boats from above the sea, what's the point?
Hear, hear!
Unless, of course there's something we don't know about modern anti-submarine warfare.

[Willard Whyte]

Anyone know the economic benefit to Scotland of having the nuke boats up there, and the consequent downside of removing them south

In all honesty, who cares?

[Courtney Mil]

I'm with you, Willard. But looking forward to seeing these Military Aviation submarines. There must be some Navy forums around somewhere, surely.

[Willard Whyte]

I think one has to allow for the ebb and flow of conversations - which is in effect what a forum of this type is.

Can't really delete everything that veres off-topic. All good stuff.

[Danny42C]

".......And heard great Argument
About it and About. But ever I came
Out by that Same Door Wherein I Went.....(Fitzgerald: The Rubaiyat of Omar Khyyam).

There is a simple way to look at this "great Argument", which has rumbled on for the last 70 years:

If, in August 1945, the Allies had known that Japan had developed a nuclear weapon, and a credible means of delivery to the W. Coast of the US, would Truman have authorised the use of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs ?

What's your answer ? And if is put in rebuttal that Truman was a trigger-happy madman, anyway, then consider that he also refused MacArthur's request to end the Korean war the same way, and in fact dismissed him from that Command.

[Biggus]

WEBF,

Always did wonder what planet you live on......

[Romeo Oscar Golf]

Wicked Willie White.......who cares you asked.
I do and many of the thousands who work and live here. As I said on the Independance thread last year
I live in the area and if I were younger and not retired I'd be very afraid. Beautiful 5 bed listed houses in half an acre plus, 60mins from Glasgow with fantastic sea views are selling for 280k.
The SNP will kill this area just to taste power
However I assume your comment was tongue in cheek not thumb up bum!

[Courtney Mil]

Ah, why didn't I wonder if this thread would degenerate into another SNP anti-nuclear rant?

Save it, please. You're not going to convince anyone here and even if you did it ain't going to change anything.

Try it on Jet Blast, you might have some luck there.

[Willard Whyte]

I assume your comment was tongue in cheek not thumb up bum

'Tis rarely anything but(t)...


Although right now I'm quite happy for anything economically beneficial to be as far doon sooth as possible.

[Romeo Oscar Golf]

degenerate into another SNP anti-nuclear rant?

Hardly a rant CM. Simply answering Willards (tongue in cheek) question.
As I said I'm long since retired and have no intentions of selling up. So apart from my kids getting very little from my estate, I couldn't give a toss where the submarines are based.:ok:

[Thomas coupling]

How do you know there are 4 boats?

There might be 6...........................................:=

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Biggus

I live in the world where:

1. 55% of Scottish voters voted NO in September - despite a lacklustre NO campaign and the fact the word 'Yes' is seen as positive.

2. It seems that last week only 35% of possible voters (either for or against the SNP) voted for them (less than the number voted Yes in the referendum), however, this was enough to win seats given the collapse of Labour/Lib Dem support. The Scottish parliament has proportional representation so those elections will perhaps be more revealing - the Scottish Conservatives have many more MSPs than MPs.

In September 44.7% of an 84.6% turn out was 37.8% of possible votes. See for yourself (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/events/scotland-decides/results).

Surely a PR system would take account of turn out?

3. Five years is a long term in politics. With so many SNP MPs, it will be hard to blame things on the Westminster parties, and the black Gold from the North Sea is running out.

[Courtney Mil]

Surely a PR system would take account of turn out?


I thought we voted on the voting issue four years ago. A resounding NO by 67% to 30 something? We can't keep on having referenda and votes on everything just because some people didn't like the result the last time we did it. All done now.

[Biggus]

So, as I thought, you live neither in the real world - nor in Scotland.

Watch and learn, starting with the 2016 Scottish elections....

[WE Branch Fanatic]

We can't keep on having referenda and votes on everything just because some people didn't like the result the last time we did it. All done now.

Tell the SNP! And Biggus. In a referendum the number of votes is what counts, in a General Election it is the number of seats.

Also - There was no rise in Scottish nationalism: Understanding the SNP victory (http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/there-was-no-rise-in-scottish-nationalism-understanding-the-snp-victory)

It is a mistake, committed by many, to equate a substantial SNP vote with an alleged rise in nationalism or nationalist sentiment in Scotland, argues Jan Eichhorn (@eichhorn_jan). The evidence indicates the contrary: data from the Scottish Social Attitudes Survey suggests that fewer people emphasise their Scottish national identity distinctively.

The 2015 general election will be memorable for many reasons, a key one being the remarkable victory of the SNP gaining 56 of 59 seats in Scotland (increasing their share dramatically from just 6 seats in 2010). Naturally, such a landslide attracts the focus of journalists, commentators and politicians who aim to assess the outcome of the election. Since the exit polls closed a lot of people have tried to make sense of what happened in Scotland. Unfortunately a lot of them made statements that have to be rejected as simply inaccurate.

It is a mistake, committed by many, to equate a substantial SNP vote with an alleged rise in nationalism or nationalist sentiment in Scotland. It may seem a plausible assumption to engage with (if you do not understand the attitudes of the Scottish electorate), but it cannot be supported by any empirical evidence. To the contrary: the best evidence we have to give us a long term perspective, data from the high-quality, face-to-face Scottish Social Attitudes Survey (SSA) suggests that, if anything, fewer people than before emphasise their Scottish national identity distinctively.

Later....summing up:

Crucially, commentators need to stop painting a picture in which the majority of Scotland predominantly base their political decision making mostly on their national identity. There has been no rise in nationalistic sentiment in Scotland. As we (amongst others) have repeatedly shown in our research, the strongest determinants of both independence and SNP support were pragmatic evaluations about economic prospects, trustworthiness and political personnel. For most people in Scotland the SNP is a normal party, that they like, hate or are indifferent to, but those evaluations for most are based on whether people agree with their policies and how they evaluate their representation.

If commentators want to understand why the SNP is successful, they need to make a greater effort at properly understanding how public attitudes are formed in Scotland. Suggesting that it is down to sentiment is lazy at best, but actually misrepresenting the majority of Scottish voters. For political parties trying to challenge the SNP, first and foremost Scottish Labour, a similar message applies: to have a chance of engaging them successfully, they need to stop focusing mostly on high-level questions about different types of nationality. Instead they need to challenge the SNP on concrete policy debates around issues that affect people’s lives and which voters in Scotland are much more likely to base their votes on than identity-driven arguments.

Turning to the issue of SSBNs and their replacements, you may find this informative:

The Continuing Role of Strategic Deterrence and How the United States Navy Meets the Demands (http://navylive.dodlive.mil/2014/07/21/the-continuing-role-of-strategic-deterrence-and-how-the-united-states-navy-meets-the-demands/)

For the SWS, the Navy is working to ensure both the shipboard systems and the flight hardware will be ready to deploy aboard OHIO Replacement. To do this, the Navy has developed a shipboard integration program. By 2020, each of the shipboard sub-systems on the current OHIO Class submarines, such as fire control, navigation, and the launcher, will be refreshed. This shipboard system configuration will serve as the initial configuration for OHIO Replacement.

Concurrent with the shipboard integration program, the Trident II D5 Life Extension (D5 LE) program will ensure the missile systems maintain their effectiveness. The Trident II D5 – and its five predecessors are more than just a missile. It is a complex system composed of solid rocket motors, numerous electronic packages, a guidance system, and reentry bodies. As the overall system ages, each of these subsystems presents their own unique challenges in regards to life extension and modernization. However, the Trident II D5 is a proven system. To date there have been 150 successful test flights. Rather than develop a new missile system, it was proven to be more cost-effective to replace components that were reaching or had reached obsolescence. The D5 LE will provide the additional missile assets needed to extend the service life of the weapon system.

One key benefit of the D5 LE is that the Navy can avoid developing an upgraded or new weapon system at the same time we are building a new class of submarine. That will reduce the cost and design risk of the OHIO Replacement, but this also means that the Trident II D5 will last more than twice as long as any previous missile system – more than 50 years (Trident I C4 was in service for 24 years).

For the first time, the Navy is building the missile compartment in a series of four-tube quad packs that will be used not only on the OHIO Replacement, but also aboard the United Kingdom’s SUCCESSOR SSBN through the 1963 Polaris Sales Agreement. SUCCESSOR is scheduled to achieve initial operating capability before OHIO Replacement. This will be the first time that the United Kingdom is purchasing a deterrent system that has not already been deployed or tested by the United States.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

So, as I thought, you live neither in the real world - nor in Scotland.

Watch and learn, starting with the 2016 Scottish elections....

Well, in the 2017 General Election the SNP took a kicking. The three main UK wide parties made gains. In fact if it was not for the Scots, we would now have a Prime Minister who is a CND member.

[Balgowan]

Well, in the 2017 General Election the SNP took a kicking. The three main UK wide parties made gains. In fact if it was not for the Scots, we would now have a Prime Minister who is a CND member.

Your first and final sentences are complete nonsense.

[Lonewolf_50]

Military Aviation is related to submarines in that they are something some military aviators hunt, they are military boats, and we sometimes have to work with them during ops in one way or another.


I am not so sure how mil aviation is related to subs and the SNP's success or failure in recent elections, but since some of the RN's subs are based in Scotland, I suppose the thread can be followed back ...This will be the first time that the United Kingdom is purchasing a deterrent system that has not already been deployed or tested by the United States
Nice job.

[Cazalet33]

If, in August 1945, the Allies had known that Japan had developed a nuclear weapon, and a credible means of delivery to the W. Coast of the US, would Truman have authorised the use of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs ?

Yes. He would have used nukes to obliterate the Jap(anese) nukes.

Never forget that Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't perpetrated to terrorise the Japanese. They were ready to surrender already and the only two sticking points in the "unconditional" surrender were that they insisted on keeping the Emperor after the surrender and they insisted on retaining the Imperial Japanese flag as their naval ensign.

The nuke strikes were to terrorise the Russians, not the Japanese. The presumption was that Commies were too stoopid to devise a "deterrent" of their own.

[Blacksheep]

I'm all for a Trident replacement,Me too.

Twenty Medium Bomber squadrons ought to do it ;) ;)

The grand old Vulcan was pretty stealthy too, if I remember correctly, though not by design...