UK Nuclear deterrent already scrapped...

[ShotOne]

..if Labour get in, that is! During today's Trident debate Mr Corbyn reiterated that he would not use nuclear weapons. It's one thing to hold that view, another to voice it publicly; in practice it means if Labour get in, we no longer have a deterrent irrespective of the outcome of the Trident renewal debate.

[Rwy in Sight]

That's it if Mr Corbyn remains leader of the labor party and then he wins the election.

[NutLoose]

There is more chance of my anus healing over than of Corbyn becoming PM.

[Lima Juliet]

MPs have voted for Trident renewal by 472 votes to 117 - a majority of 355. Considering that the Tories have 330 MPS then at least 130 of the Labour lot of their 230 voted for Trident.

Sorry Corbyn et al - you've lost the argument....:ok:

[dat581]

Mr Corbyn clearly has no idea what the nuclear deterrent is actually for or how it prevents weapons of mass destruction being used on the UK.

[Tankertrashnav]

His characterising of the use of nuclear weapons as "murder" is deeply offensive. He is basically saying that members of the Trident submarine force are potential murderers, as well as former members of the V Force, the tactical strike force in Germany etc. That is a view you may choose to hold when addressing a CND meeting with a silly hat on, but not when you are seeking to become prime minister.

Fortunately as today's vote showed, he has no more chance of becoming the next PM than I have.

[A and C]

It also shows that there is a great deal more common sence in the Labour Party than you might think........... But how long can it survive ?

[airpolice]

tankertrashnav:
Fortunately as today's vote showed, he has no more chance of becoming the next PM than I have.

Leon Jabachjabicz:
MPs have voted for Trident renewal by 472 votes to 117 - a majority of 355. Considering that the Tories have 330 MPS then at least 130 of the Labour lot of their 230 voted for Trident.

Sorry Corbyn et al - you've lost the argument....


NutLoose:

There is more chance of my anus healing over than of Corbyn becoming PM.

[MSOCS]

Huge knock for the idealistic Corbyn today. His days as leader of the Labour Party have been severely cut. With the recent Tory cull (and swift return to business), the LP will be keen to do the same, in order to provide a credible opposition.

I personally think this Labour experiment has gone far enough now.

Vote him out. His belligerence deserves the most public and humiliating ousting.

[NutLoose]

l could see Corbyn standing there, basking in the glorious instant sunshine as his plastic sandals melt to his feet, vowing to send a strongly worded letter to Comrade Putin.

[ShotOne]

"Sorry Corbyn you've lost the argument ..." Not really; Yes he lost the vote. The point is, Issuing this statement bypasses the argument and nullifies our deterrent in the (admittedly unlikely at this point) event of his party winning power.

Don't get me wrong, there is a perfectly principled point of view against nukes. But that's quite different from making a predictive statement on how Britains leader would respond to a future emergency.

[Jayand]

At least Corbyn has the strength of character to say and vote for what he believes, the biggest joke is that the shadow defence secretary abstained from voting on this the biggest and most important defence policy decision in a generation! The labour party won't be getting into power for a very long time.

[tucumseh]

The debate should have been about the principle of the requirement. The Government made it about cost, but then couldn't answer the SNP question about through-life costs. Hopefully DE&S won't be allowed to proceed without knowing what they are. Like them or not, the SNP are the de facto Opposition. In Ms Black, they have the youngest and one of the most eloquent MPs in the House.

[Evalu8ter]

In effect, all Corbyn has done is neuter the Deterrent should the UK public take leave of their senses and elect him as PM. Assuming he doesn't then immediately scrap it, his "Letters of Last Resort" could merely say "don't fire under any circumstances"; that way the unions are happy as the boats will be designed, built and maintained and the ghosts of the CND nut jobs can be happy about us not incinerating those that have already incinerated us, with no regard to civilian casualties....He can also, legitimately, change his mind (unlikely I know...he still seems to rate Diane Abbott...). It also enables Labour to campaign on a non-unilateralist stage, albeit with strong caveats, and would permit future govts the choice to behave differently. However, "Choice" appears to be an anathema to Corbyn and Cronies who prefer to dictate behaviours/beliefs from a smug position of pseudo-intellectual superiority - as indeed do most Left Wing regimes.

[Coochycool]

Ditto.

So much hogwash about the effect on local jobs, as if somehow that should hold any bearing on nuclear prevalance.

Or conversely how 31 Billion could otherwise be spent for that matter.

We either need it or we don't, end of.

But I'm more dismayed at the apparent absence of a debate upon it's nature.

Vague rumblings about the invincibility of a submarine launch platform. And an apparent presumption that ICBMs are the only viable weapon.

Have nuclear tipped SLCMs been considered for example? If you want to talk economics, how many of those could you get for the same money?

If you could get say ten times as many, is that a more viable/versatile option even after you factor in it's presumed greater vulnerability to air defences?

I'd just like to be reassured that this debate has in fact taken place.

Cooch

[Tiger G]

Why don't they put it out the public to vote on whether we have a nuclear deterrent ?? Give us another referendum.

I'm sick of politicians, who are supposed to representing us, the general public, making decisions that are not representative of what we want.

[ShotOne]

"Strength of character to vote for what he believes..." On the contrary, jayand, his beliefs aren't the issue. What he's done is override the vote (having decisively lost it!) and give two fingers to the parliamentary decision if (heaven forbid) he's ever elected.

[tegwin]

Why don't they put it out the public to vote on whether we have a nuclear deterrent ?? Give us another referendum. I am all for a democratic process but most of the population know so little about defense or even mutually assured destruction...

Put it this way, if you are ill and go to the doctor would you rather:
A:- Your doctor talks to other doctors and debates what is wrong with you using informed judgement.
B:- Ask every random person on the street and base your treatment on what their mate sally told them at the gym last week...

[Fareastdriver]

That Welsh Windbag, Neil Kinnock, said that his first action as Prime Minister if he won the 1992 Election, would be to recall the British Nuclear submarines.

Labour got drubbed and he resigned as leader.

[Not_a_boffin]

But I'm more dismayed at the apparent absence of a debate upon it's nature.

Vague rumblings about the invincibility of a submarine launch platform. And an apparent presumption that ICBMs are the only viable weapon.

Have nuclear tipped SLCMs been considered for example? If you want to talk economics, how many of those could you get for the same money?

If you could get say ten times as many, is that a more viable/versatile option even after you factor in it's presumed greater vulnerability to air defences?

I'd just like to be reassured that this debate has in fact taken place.

Clegg and Beaker were specifically allowed to run a government study on this during the coalition years and it was widely publicised. See below.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/trident-alternatives-review

It comprehensively debunked their naïve wibblings, not least because all these nuclear tipped SLCM that people fondly imagine could be strapped into an A-boat, don't actually exist - nor do suitable warheads. And that's before you get into the issues about penetrability / survivability and most importantly the issue of ambiguity given people have been lobbing TLAM about with relative abandon over the last twenty-odd years.

[pasta]

Have nuclear tipped SLCMs been considered for example? If you want to talk economics, how many of those could you get for the same money?

If you could get say ten times as many, is that a more viable/versatile option even after you factor in it's presumed greater vulnerability to air defences?
For the deterrent to be meaningful, you need to pretty much guarantee some of your warheads will get through, which is effectively impossible when using cruise missiles against a well-defended target.
ICBM warheads are very difficult and expensive to intercept; for a flavour of some of the measures used to ensure a target is reached, have a look at the Wikipedia page for Chevaline.

As for using submarines - any land-based system puts a premium on a first strike, because you have to use it before you lose it. Not only do you want a submarine-based system, so that you can threaten to use it in retaliation; you also want your nuclear-armed adversary to have a submarine-based system. If they feel their system is invulnerable, they won't feel pressured into a first strike.

[Not_a_boffin]

the LP will be keen to do the same, in order to provide a credible opposition.

I personally think this Labour experiment has gone far enough now.


The PLP may be keen to get rid. Unfortunately, (or hilariously depending on your PoV), the actual members of the labour party are diametrically opposed to the PLP and are engaged in a social-media fest reinforcing their own prejudices. I have a number of long-standing friends who I would usually describe as intelligent, rational etc, despite having the unfortunate tendency of being Labour inclined. They are all (without exception) supporters of the messiah - some form of collective moonhowling lunacy appears to be afoot in the country.

[Evalu8ter]

Pasta,
Good call - SLBMs buy time to confirm a strike is inbound and if it is, to negotiate from a position of (relative....) strength after the first exchanges by ICBMs/IRBMs have been completed...if, of course, anyone is left. The First Strike strategy, e.g. Counter-force, Counter-value or Decapitation can be analysed and an appropriate response ordered - assuming links are available. If, however, the aggressor has achieved decapitation he must reckon that, at some stage in the near future, SLBMs will start launching. This is the key role for the SLBM, that of assured penetration vice SLCMs, and is why Deterrent has worked for so long; SLBM MIRVs cannot be reliably attrited by any defence mechanism yet deployed. DEW based defence systems may well spell the end for the SSBN/SLBM combination but that's probably 30 years away yet....As already mentioned, basing your deterrent on SLCMs or air launched Storm Shadow provides as much potential for mis-ID and miscalculation as would using a Trident D-5 to deliver a hyper velocity conventional kinetic weapon......"it's not a nuke, honest guv"

[NutLoose]

Like them or not, the SNP are the de facto Opposition

And that is in itself a farce, when they polled less than the total UKIP received, for a solitary MP.

[dervish]

Trident is a marvelous achievement. We thank you for the opportunity to appreciate it but now it's someone else's turn. Notting Hill Gate?

Nutloose, an old argument. The SNP stood in Scotland, pop. approx 5m. UKIP stood in, mainly, England, pop. 60m. Apples and oranges.

[Martin the Martian]

I was rather impressed at the PM's answer to the question, particularly as the responsibility is probably only just sinking in and the ink is barely dry on the last resort letters:

May: Yes I would push nuclear button - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/video_and_audio/headlines/36832530)

[BEagle]

The idiot Corbyn should remember that it was a Labour government, under Clement Attlee, which decided in 1947 that the 'manufacture of a British bomb was essential to our defence'.

Even though it was just beginning to show promise when cancelled, the lack of flexibility inherent in the air-launched Skybolt ALBM, plus the vulnerability of Blue Streak and Thor, meant that Polaris was a far more credible strategic deterrent. Blue Steel was really only a stand-off weapon, whereas Skybolt was a 1000 mile range strategic nuclear missile.

One proposal would have seen a 'Phase 6' Vulcan, with a MAUW some 70% greater than that of the Vulcan B2, carrying up to 6 Skybolts. But at least it would have had ejector seats for the rear crew, plus an off-duty rest section.

All came to nought though, for in 1968 the national deterrent responsibility was transferred to the Polaris submarine fleet and subsequently to Trident.

I thought Mrs May spoke well yesterday, although to emphasise that one reason for Trident's successor was to support workers in the defence industry, particularly around Rossyth, was a bit disproportionate - a bit like saying that we should have retained capital punishment in order to protect the livelihoods of rope makers and hangmen.

[Treble one]

Having a Trident replacement is a national 'insurance policy'. Just like any insurance policy, its overly expensive, you never use it.....until that one time you might do....or at least be happy its there.....


The GBP have not a lot of strategic inclination, and most I would think wouldn't have a clue about the capabilities of any potential enemy. I wonder how many of them realise that Russia has stand off nuclear capable ALCM's that could turn the UK into a smoking hole before QRA got anywhere near them (as I understand it anyway).....


The fact they won't do it (well one of the considerations I'm sure) is that big boat underneath the North Atlantic somewhere with our own deterrent on board.....MAD....


On a separate note, RE The Labour Party, the biggest mistake they ever made was electing the wrong Milliband-its all gone REALLY pear shaped since-and its still heading South with JC.

[dervish]

There is an old saying. If you press the button first, you're mad. If you press it second, the deterrent has failed.

[Not_a_boffin]

On a separate note, RE The Labour Party, the biggest mistake they ever made was electing the wrong Milliband-its all gone REALLY pear shaped since

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01217/banana_1217414a.jpg

Never really seen the logic behind the beatification of Millipede senior, personally. Not a good look really and that photo isn't going away any time soon......

The entire family appears congenitally incapable of proximity to food items without making d1cks of themselves.

[tucumseh]

NAB

I agree. My only justification is that some years ago a company in his constituency asked him to intercede when they discovered they were embroiled in an unfair competition. (MoD had visited a competitor to brief them on how to win, handing them the answer to the exam question). At first he was all for going into bat, but perhaps it was the fact a Director of that favoured company was a Defence Minister that made him step back. MoD paid 8 times the going rate. The company lodged a complaint, but DG Commercial told them to withdraw, or be blacklisted. They walked away from MoD business, and still we pay over the odds. .....I suppose I'm arguing that he should immediately be made Defence Minister. He has all the necessary attributes.

[JagRigger]

Wonder if they'll build the new boats on the Clyde - when the SNP don't want to home them...

[Treble one]

He's not as bananas as the current incumbent as Leader of The Labour Party though.....

[OmegaV6]

wee jimmie krankie needs to be reminded that the nuclear option is a UK decision, as is the location of the UK bases, and that her compatriots voted to remain part of the UK.

It might be worth pointing out that, at the present moment Scotland is NOT a "nation" (they even admit that in the words to their chosen anthem .. "Flower of Scotland"..

"neck..wind in" would be a reasonable answer to all her whinging, especially given the amount of UK money she gets to spend ... :)

[JG54]

JagRigger: Given that the only yard which can (realistically) build 'em is Barrow, the answer is a very straightforward no.

Personally, and for the added flexibility / redundancy it would confer, I'd like to see some sort of 'mini triad' option - this, however, is clearly not on the table - for many reasons, not least of which cost. Given that this is a non - starter, any argument for systems other than SLBM is wholly specious.

Regards,

Frank

[Arclite01]

Actually the only thing you hear the Dwarf talk about is Independence and referendum on the same.............

The SNP has gone very quiet on all other policy matters - this referendum thing has given them a good opportunity to keep all that stuff (like education, finance, healthcare, policing etc.) well under the radar..........

Thus not exposing them for the insubstantial '1 trick ponies' that they really are............

Arc

[Tankertrashnav]

I heard someone on the radio putting forward the possibility of creating a sovereign base area around Faslane, should Scotland ever go independent. In that way they could rest content that no nuclear weapons were on Scottish territory. Not quite as bizarre as it seems, SBAs have existed in Cyprus, which is an independent nation for around 50 years, and the system seems to work quite well. No need for it to be too big, workers could still travel in from Helensburgh, etc, in the same way that civilian workers at Akrotiri travel in from Limassol outside the SBA. We could even pay Scotland some rent - by that time it will be so skint when it discovers the reality of going it alone that it will be glad of a few quid.

[PDR1]

NAB
but perhaps it was the fact a Director of that favoured company was a Defence Minister that made him step back.

I'd love to see some authoritative sources for that, given that Ministers are not allowed to be company directors while in office (and indeed must hand their personal investment finances to trustees).

As one who is in the defence industry, and has been for the entire time that Milliband has been an MP, the whole tale sounds extremely unlikely to me even for a UOR procurement.

PDR

[DODGYOLDFART]

I can only assume that the Scots Nat's would be more than happy to see the removal of the Trident fleet and all of its servicing capacity to South of their boarder.

I believe at one time Milford Haven was considered as an alternative to Faslane. I am sure that the 2000 jobs that that would bring to West Wales would be very welcome.

Any one else like to bang that drum?

[Admin_Guru]

Being Devils Advocate:

The UK is perhaps the worlds leading light in Chemical and Biological warfare. Easily delivered by both short and long range manned and remote platforms.
Comrade Corbyn suggested yesterday that the Trident replacement could cost in excess of £200billion. I dont think we need the expense of Trident although I do believe that Battlefield tactical nuclear weapons and depth charges have their place.
We have seen that the globe is an unpredicable place and my 'what if' is that a need for nuclear reponse is hypothetically in the northern hemisphere whilst the 'Duty boat' is parked off Buenos Aires second guessing a perceived threat. I will say though; WTF do most of the residents of the Commons know about military matters.
In summ: The argument against Trident could have been served with something a little more substantial then it was; the caveat being that it was not UK Nuclear Response being discussed, rather one specific delivery mechanism.

[Coochycool]

Thanks for the link, Notaboffin

Sobering reading to be savoured over a few pints!

Cooch

[NutLoose]

I am surprised May hasn't countered Widow Twanky's statement in the press that she has and will hold a veto over the issue.
It would scotch that once and for all and make Widow Twanky's position look increasingly desperate.

[Rwy in Sight]

A thought that just crossed my mind: who would trust a politician not to use the deterrent when the definition of a politician lying is that he does so when he moves his lips.

[ORAC]

XyJh3qKjSMk

[Pontius Navigator]

Regarding the letter of last resort, of course we don't know what anyu of them actually said. May might say No and Cbin might say Yes.

Then there is the question of chain of command. According to Hennessey the AOCinC Bomber Command was empowered to launch the V-Force in the event of loss of contact with the PM. Of course once scrambled the Force then had to get a release authorisation; with SLBC launch implies release.

However is it possible that CinC Fleet could release in similar circumstances? Does he also have a letter of last resort?

The elephant however is what constitutes last resort. Loss of comms alone is not proof positive of nuclear strike. First use, at sea, is not proof either.

[ShotOne]

The military commander may have had that authority in a situation caused by a breakdown in communication. But if the PM had expressly denied permission for a strike, that would be a different situation entirely.

[Treble one]

Regarding the letter of last resort, of course we don't know what anyu of them actually said. May might say No and Cbin might say Yes.

Then there is the question of chain of command. According to Hennessey the AOCinC Bomber Command was empowered to launch the V-Force in the event of loss of contact with the PM. Of course once scrambled the Force then had to get a release authorisation; with SLBC launch implies release.

However is it possible that CinC Fleet could release in similar circumstances? Does he also have a letter of last resort?

The elephant however is what constitutes last resort. Loss of comms alone is not proof positive of nuclear strike. First use, at sea, is not proof either.


Perhaps they will listen out for Radio 4 PN? :O

[Pontius Navigator]

111, only if they are in the Devil's Hole. Broadcast to the SPA might be a bit iffy.

[Pontius Navigator]

Shot one, the Nelson touch? Forgot to clear his in tray?

The only logical option, should Cbin have the power, it to recall all boats and lay them up.

[Tankertrashnav]

I thought it was Radio 2, but memory may be letting me down

[ShotOne]

I'm not sure the Nelson touch extends to starting your own nuclear war, PN!

Re "lay the boats up.." That would actually be more sensible and principled than Mr Corbyns actual proposal which is to spend a squillion £'s building them to keep his union comrades happy, but state they'll never be used.

[Pontius Navigator]

ShowTime, not starting, just not left at the starting gate.

Certainly in the V-Force, when all around was toast, we would have aborted if we did not get the go message. I have no idea if the CinC had a letter of last resort. According to Hennessey he certainly had the authority.

TTN, it was the Light Service on 200kc/s. Radio 4 Long Wave is now on 198kHz

[Treble one]

PN IIRC from Hennessey, the PM had 2 nuclear deputies....if war was looking inevitable, these would be identified to the Joint Chiefs and CinC Bomber Command to notify them of their identities.


Should the PM be killed, then one of the deputies was authorised to order to release the V Force-if contact was lost with both deputies (one in London and one at Turnstile) then the CinC Bomber Command could authorise release of the bombers to their targets.


No letters of last resort prior to the Polaris boats as far as I recall-its been a while since I read Hennessey though...


It would be interesting to know the Chain of Command now and whether Mrs May has any nuclear deputies-especially as her letters are still in number 10 (possibly) or only in the safes of the boats not on patrol....

[kintyred]

Much of interest in these posts. The one thing I am missing is a realistic scenario that might cause us to use the deterrent. During the Cold War it was absolutely clear why we needed nuclear weapons. Now it seems less obvious. I find it interesting that we think we need a deterrent when Germany, Spain, Italy etc don't. Are we sure that it is a deterrent we need or a status symbol to shore up our international reputation?
Retreating to my shelter!!!

[Pontius Navigator]

Kintyred, first it is easier to retain than restart after a gap. The 10 years without a maritime aircraft is a case on point. Secondly the replacement is decades away yet.

The Cold War ended a quarter century ago, who can predict what will happen, or have happened , in 25 years.

Status symbol? Germany, Spain, Italy? We remain a Global player, as is France. We have a permanent seat on the UNSC, as does France.

You might ask why we have that UNSC seat; why we are a Global Player; why we do what we do.

[NutLoose]

The fall out from Chernobyl proved that if it had gone bang most of Europe would have collected some Ready Brek glow.

[Tankertrashnav]

The Cold War ended a quarter century ago, who can predict what will happen, or have happened , in 25 years.

Quite so, P-N. All those who are second guessing what the nature of the next major war will be (or won't be) should remember what a hairy arsed old AEO on our squadron used to say when some wheel came up with the phrase "It is not envisaged that..."

"At the first battle in recorded history, Jericho, it was not envisaged that the main assault on the city's defences would be made by musicians!"

[NutLoose]

Well, we now where the one of our subs at sea is/was

UK Nuclear Sub Damaged In Gibraltar Collision (http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/uk-nuclear-sub-damaged-in-gibraltar-collision/ar-BBuzZFp?li=AA59G2&ocid=spartandhp)

That's going to need a whole bucket full of filler.

http://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BBuA9Py.img?h=1080&w=1920&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f

[salad-dodger]

Well, we now where the one at sea is/was

UK Nuclear Sub Damaged In Gibraltar Collision (http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/uk-nuclear-sub-damaged-in-gibraltar-collision/ar-BBuzZFp?li=AA59G2&ocid=spartandhp)


Really? Read the story in your link, then look up HMS Ambush. :ugh:

S-D

[sitigeltfel]

The sub boasts sensors that can supposedly detect the signature of a ship leaving New York harbour.
Maybe they should fit some that pick up ships around them! ;)

[Cazalet33]

No amount of kit can make up for rotten seamanship.

Remember the other A-boat which was run aground on a well known gravel bank near the Skye bridge?

[911slf]

Just a small serious point for the sake of it.

We are belatedly buying maritime patrol aircraft to protect the submarine fleet. So it needs protecting. I don't buy the stuff about the oceans being transparent or the Russian "underwater drones" having magical powers. But I also don't buy the notion that it is always impossible to detect our submarines given how much bragging we hear about tracking Russian submarines.

Why can't we have a discussion along the lines of "nothing is certain, nothing is for ever, this is the best option for now, on the basis of the information we have".

Is there an English nickname for the manoeuvre known as the "Crazy Ivan"?

[Cazalet33]

It used to be called The Navy Lark.

[Wander00]

It'll buff out..........

[Fareastdriver]

How does an attack submarine manage to run into a ship? It reminds me of the Chinese fighter pilot who managed to run into an Orion off the coast of Hainan.

Too much automation, not enough brains.

[pasta]

How does an attack submarine manage to run into a ship?
My guess is that they were already very close to it on purpose.

Read Hennessy's book for an idea of some of the things these attack submarines get up to. If you're going to get up close and personal with someone else's naval vessels, not a bad idea to have practiced against a few merchant ships first...

[TEEEJ]

Nutloose wrote

Well, we now where the one at sea is/was

That is HMS Ambush which is an SSN and does not carry Trident.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astute-class_submarine

SSBN

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanguard-class_submarine

[ShotOne]

"Close to it on purpose..." Really? While it doesn't directly bear on the thread since neither of the accidents mentioned here involved ballistic missile submarines, still, Far East Drivers question is entirely valid. How on earth..?

[pasta]

Lots of reasons you might want to get very close to another ship; a couple of examples might be to gather intelligence (photographing bits of it through the periscope) or using it to conceal yourself.

[Pontius Navigator]

Remember the waters around the Straits have very different properties from open ocean. Not know any of the circumstances it is there is no point in blaming the submarine. Maybe the other ship made a sudden manoeuvre not knowing the presence of the submarine. I am sure it will come out in the court martial.

[kintyred]

Kintyred, first it is easier to retain than restart after a gap. The 10 years without a maritime aircraft is a case on point. Secondly the replacement is decades away yet.

The Cold War ended a quarter century ago, who can predict what will happen, or have happened , in 25 years.

Status symbol? Germany, Spain, Italy? We remain a Global player, as is France. We have a permanent seat on the UNSC, as does France.

You might ask why we have that UNSC seat; why we are a Global Player; why we do what we do.

Yes indeed PN, that was my very next question....it's a very expensive chair - and is almost certainly bought at the cost of reducing our defensive capacity elsewhere.

[Pontius Navigator]

KR, the cost of being a global player rather than a regional one?

[Heathrow Harry]

according to something in the Times it was "training officers" - possibly a Perisher type operation

Hennesy details some really hairy training there

[ShotOne]

"No point blaming the submarine" ..As you say, we don't know the circumstances but it would be stretching things to blame a merchant ship for colliding with a submerged submarine!

[4mastacker]

In Nutty's photo, is that the sonar team standing on the naughty step?

[Tourist]

You know how people on Pprune hate it when non aviators in the press for example talk utter rubbish about things they don't understand?

How ironic.......

As many have said already, go and read about the things that they get up to. Yes when they hit things it is a mistake, an error.

There is a big difference between an error made by very professional people doing something astonishingly difficult, and the incompetence espoused by the herd on here.

[Heathrow Harry]

welllllllllllllll

they're not always "very professional" - they court-martialed and removed Andy Coles, Captain of HMS Astute for running aground off Broadford...................

[MAINJAFAD]

Well, we now where the one of our subs at sea is/was

UK Nuclear Sub Damaged In Gibraltar Collision (http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/uk-nuclear-sub-damaged-in-gibraltar-collision/ar-BBuzZFp?li=AA59G2&ocid=spartandhp)

That's going to need a whole bucket full of filler.

http://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BBuA9Py.img?h=1080&w=1920&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f
Anybody remember when our deterrent patrol V- Boat collided with the French deterrent patrol boat???

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Vanguard_and_Le_Triomphant_submarine_collision

[Pontius Navigator]

Mainjafad, clearly not possible as no one knows where our boats patrol. Now if the French boat hit one of ours then it would know where ours patrolled. But from the first premise, as no one knows, it is clear it didnt happen.

[TEEEJ]

PN,

See from 0:20. The First Sea Lord Admiral Sir Jonathon Band confirms the collision took place.

UWJZ7n3o1w8&feature=related

See video at following link during another conference. The First Sea Lord Admiral Sir Jonathon Band confirms the collision took place.

BBC NEWS | UK | Nuclear subs collide in Atlantic (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7892294.stm)

[ORAC]

Well it was an exercise, it is a Hunter-Killer, not a Boomer; and as demonstrated in the Hunt For Red October, you do want the Captains and crew trained to undertake close in operations against the enemy if needs arise. And accidents do happen in training.

I'd be more alarmed if they weren't training, despite the supposed end of the Cold War.

[NutLoose]

I do like the sensor cover, it reminds me of black plastic sheet and bodge tape, for a multi billion system, it looks a lash up, but probably cost thousands.

[Pontius Navigator]

TEEJ, didn't say it didn't happen, just not to jump to conclusions how if happened.

Admittedly the normal rules of the seas cannot apply when one of the vessels is not visible to the other, but I can envisage a situation where the larger vessel turns into the other.

[MAINJAFAD]

PN

The reasons for the collision are quite simple, two Ballistic missile subs were operating in the same patch of water. Both were pretty much operating in a make as little noise as possible mode and were both looking for the best water conditions around them to avoid detection. Needless to say they couldn't hear each other and thus ended up hitting each other.

[Pontius Navigator]

Mainjafad, sorry, my sarcastic humour. We had a similar issue with MAP areas. As you no doubt know no MPA should be Greene's into the same area at the same time except for handover procedures.

Well, one day, what should we see but a P3 bumbling along below us. Quick check of our Green, check checksums, all checked, he is the intruder. Down we went but still some way off realise it is a MAY. As we closed for the bounce we spot two more MAY going the other way.

Finally, to cut the story short, we missed the first May very much by brilliant flying and good luck.

[Lonewolf_50]

PN, in March of 1991 two P-3's hit each other in mid air. (San Diego, CA, op area). One was coming on station and one was leaving. Our squadron had some tasking to support the SAR effort. One of our detachments was on a ship in that same exercise ... what little was found was pretty grim. It was a head on collision.
VPNAVY - VP-50 Memorial Page (http://www.vpnavy.com/vp50mem_04dec98.html)
(The best clue as to "why" based on info form our higher HQ was that there had been a miscommunication with one of the aircraft from the exercise controllers on ingress and egress altitudes ... )
(If you scroll down the Tracy Kreckman at this link (http://lost-at-sea-memorials.com/?p=1362)you'll get a hint of what someone saw when the collision happened).

[Tinribs]

Members of this esteemed website are losing sight of the Corbyn view of democracy which may be seen thus;

If the majority of voters agree with Corbyn he is correct
If the majority of MPs agree with Corbyn he is right
If the majoprity of Labour MPs agree with Corbyn he is right
If the majority of Labour party members agree with Corbyn he is right
If none of the above apply he is brave and principled and therefor right

[ShotOne]

Well put, tin ribs. This isn't about whether or not we agree with Corbyn's opinion. He is fully entitled to campaign for his view. But he's gone way beyond that. His statement imposes his view regardless of the result of the debate, even of the views of his own MP's and two fingers to democracy. Inexplicably, some portray this as "principled".

[ShotOne]

The thread is nothing to do with who leads the Labour Party; its about his public statement that he would never use the nuclear deterrent.

[Heathrow Harry]

not just him - quite a few Tories have a similar view...................

[HAS59]

It's a nuclear deterrent - whether the useless bunch of politicians we currently have decide to use it or not. It's there - it works - its use should be a matter of doubt to any aggressor - that adds to its deterrent value - putting doubt into the mind of an adverory weakens him.

As for ''would they use it?'' well some say ''oh no not me'' but that is here, now, today's world. What about in 10 - 20 years from now? Maybe when they've grown up a bit and experienced the real world they might think differently.

Only one country has 'given up' nuclear weapons - the Ukraine - and we can all see how well that's worked for them.

Take a look around the world at states planning for sea based nuclear weapons ... if they are such a bad idea why are they spending billions on them?

They are potentially disastrous weapons ... truly horrific in their capability ... also very effective at deterring other states and the individuals that control them ... and that is their purpose.

Politics is at a very low ebb at the moment in the UK with so called 'democracy' being seen by many as a failed system, government isn't governing any more it's trying to give the people what they think they want in order to make them look good. There is very little credible leadership being shown.

These are dangerous times and I for one am glad that the go-ahead has been given to build four new submarines to house the system we currently have.

[Basil]

not just him - quite a few Tories have a similar view...................
Fortunately, they don't have the authority to make the decision.
I do hope that the leaders of foreign powers understand that those people speak only for themselves and those, such as Vince Cable, have no governmental power whatsoever.

[Not_a_boffin]

Only one country has 'given up' nuclear weapons - the Ukraine - and we can all see how well that's worked for them.

Technically, so did the Saffers. Not worked out too well for them either - although I for one am glad they're not accessible to some of the "yoof" down there.

[Chugalug2]

Basil:-
those, such as Vince Cable, have no governmental power whatsoever.

Vince Cable is fast becoming a caricature, the sort that whispers in an overloud voice, "I'm not one to gossip but...". The mistake was ever allowing him to become privy to policy discussion that he cannot keep to himself.

[Pontius Navigator]

LW50, thanks, that is what I was saying about the handover procedure, a procedure introduced decades earlier.

[KenV]

PN, in March of 1991 two P-3's hit each other in mid air. (San Diego, CA, op area). One was coming on station and one was leaving. Our squadron had some tasking to support the SAR effort. One of our detachments was on a ship in that same exercise ... what little was found was pretty grim. It was a head on collision.
VPNAVY - VP-50 Memorial Page (http://www.vpnavy.com/vp50mem_04dec98.html)

I was a VP-50 Blue Dragon at Moffet Field for several years and two deployments. Even though I was already in the reserves when this tragedy happened it was still a very sad day for me. Somebody had to have screwed up big time for both the ingress and egress aircraft to be at the same altitude.