Military AircrewA forum for the professionals who fly the non-civilian hardware, and the backroom boys and girls without whom nothing would leave the ground. Army, Navy and Airforces of the World, all equally welcome here.
Trident is sucking the RN dry (and based in an area which might not even be part of the UK if the clowns at Westminster continue the way they're going) - there is an opportunity here for the Government of the UK to cut the deterrent loose entirely. Some say the nukes guarantee the Security Council seat (never explaining the mechanism by which it would be removed) but the reality is that a Permanent Member who loses the ability to meaningfully participate in Chapter VII actions shouldn't have one whether they have nukes or not.
I would certainly like to see the spending put into the nuclear deterrent moved to areas of far greater need. A weapon so frightening it can only be used in retaliation to a first shot is of questionable deterrent value.
Now that the technology for precision attack is very mature and high value targets can be reliably eliminated by conventional arms, the main advantage still in the nuclear weapons favour is the ability to take out a great mass of targets at once. Unless we resort to WW2 style city bombing, or wish to take out the Chinese army, I don't think it's a pressing need.
I don't think the security council seat claims could ever prove credible - it would be a very public statement effectively endorsing motivation for moves towards nuclear weaponry by other states and confirming all unsaid rules of the current nuclear club: disarmament is a great idea - you first; no one should have nuclear weapons, unless you already have them, in which case you should discourage all other nations from desiring them, as such weapons are better in your more experienced hands.
Trouble is of course if we give up our very expensive nuclear toys we lose our permanent seat on the UN security councils which means that our egotistical politicians will no longer be able to pretend that they are real players in the game of international politics and play with the big boys
Forgive my stupidity here - what is the point in us having such a seat, aside from politicians ego's mentioned earlier. This is not a Troll - I would really like to know!
VinRouge is correct - Trident is not funded from the RN's budget. If anyone thinks that the money used for it would be deployed elsewhere in Defence, you're extremely optimistic. It will be used to pay the feckless to do nothing as well as all the other value-for-money areas that the Govt sink our cash into. If we're not going to have a submarine based ballistic system (like every other nuclear power), then let's just not bother with nuclear weapons. It would be pointless (in view of its total lack of invulnerability) and probably more expensive to develop than simply continuing with a SM based system. We have almost 50 years experience of SSBN technology. On the other hand, we have never successfully developed a stand-off airborne nuclear capability (except Blue Steel and I don't really think success is usually a word associated with that programme). But then it all comes down to the fact that we urgently need to have a national debate about the whole subject of defence and, by extension, our place in the World. At the moment we have a totally unbalanced pot-mess, which needs sorting. Pronto.
Hipper is correct.... Dannatt has fallen into the trap of assuming that Trident is a weapons system... It is not. It is a job making machine.... Without Trident the Government of the day can wave good bye to all the votes in Scotland and most of them in the NW of England.
You claim that we have "almost 50 years experience of SSBN technology."
I had thought that Polaris was essentially an American missile - using US-supplied missiles, launch tubes, ReBs, and fire-control systems, and with British-built (US designed) warheads.
And though the subs were Brit-built, wasn't it a matter of Vickers and Cammell Laird bolting their bows and sterns on to the 'clever bit' - the American-designed missile compartment?
And though the consent of the British Prime Minister has always been required for the use of British nuclear weapons, I'd understood that operational control was under SACEUR/SACLANT.
The UK Chevaline upgrade (which added multiple decoys, chaff, and other defensive countermeasures) was not a great example of the UK's 'command' of technology, as it was a complete cluster that experienced gargantuan cost overruns and that didn't achieve what it set out to.
The lease of pooled Trident D5s (even with a massive 5% research and development contribution) does not seem to put the UK at the forefront of SSBN technology, either.
They are smart submarines that carry Trident, I know, but the clever bit is again not of our design, since the missile compartment is based on the system used on the US Ohio class.
There may be plenty of reasons to poke fun at Blue Steel (though it wasn't as big type of dog up as Chevaline, I'd suggest) but it did provide a genuinely autonomous national capability, and elements of it were impressive. Wasn't the Blue Steel's nav/guidance system more advanced than that in the aircraft that carried the missile, for example? And it did give the V-Force a stand off capability, even at low level.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 70
Posts: 9,345
Quote:
Originally Posted by D O Guerrero
VinRouge is correct - Trident is not funded from the RN's budget. If anyone thinks that the money used for it would be deployed elsewhere in Defence, you're extremely optimistic. It will be used to pay the feckless to do nothing as well as all the other value-for-money areas that the Govt sink our cash into..
Correct but it is a very large cheque written by UK plc.
While that money would not be transferred to Defence it would be available elsewhere which would reduce the pressure on Defence.
~~~
It is also the whole nonsense of Defence money. If onle budget holder can save £squiilions by shafting some other budget holder then he is happy. Defence is single entity not 3 or 5 different factions in-fighting for a small pot of gold.
Without Trident the Government of the day can wave good bye to all the votes in Scotland and most of them in the NW of England.
I don't think the Tories would be too bothered about losing votes in Scotland. I think they may encourage Mr Salmon to have his referundum and see the back of Labour forever. As for NW England, well now that the Japanese have finally agreed to take back their nuclear waste, and least one of the major production facilities should be in business for a fair while yet. The lads at Barrow could diversify into tractors or superguns.
Jacko, While you make some very fair points as ever, I don't think there is anything wrong with the statement that you quoted from me. So what if the "clever bits" are American? I would say that, for once, that was a sensible piece of procurement. We still have a lot of experience of the system wherever it was built. SACEUR was indeed responsible, during the Cold War at any rate (I can't honestly say if this is still the case), for NATO-wide targetting policy. Which makes perfect sense - there's no point everyone hitting the same targets all at once. OPCON was given to SACLANT, which again makes perfect sense. But what you don't mention is that neither of these authorities had any control should an independent launch be required that didn't involve other NATO countries. Furthermore, the autonomy of the system is guaranteed by the absence of interlocks fitted to the Ohio boats and their missiles. UK Commanders can independently launch if the circumstances arise although US Commanders cannot. American permission is absolutely not necessary and neither is the GPS system as the urban legend would have us believe. Blue Steel - It may have had a good INS (but then again is high accuracy that important in a nuclear weapon?), but it was completely vulnerable to SAMs even during the 1960s. The V-bomber had to get within something like 150nm of the target. I'd hardly call that stand-off!
I'd understood your reference to 50 yrs of experience of the technology to refer to DESIGN/DEVELOPMENT experience, going hand in hand with your remarks about the cost of developing a replacement, and contrasting it, as you did, with the supposed lack of experience developing airborne weapons.
No-one would dispute experience of OPERATING experience, just as no-one would deny 50 years experience operating air-dropped nukes.
I was careful not to suggest that there was not a notional autonomous national capability with Polaris and Trident - but it is not optimised for such use, and there are doubts as to the practicalities and limitations that might be encountered had we ever needed to use them autonomously.
As to Blue Steel, it's best compared with what else was around AT THE TIME, when many strategic bombers still relied on freefall weapons. In any case, BS was due to give way to BS 2 (and later Skybolt).
Had we had Skybolt instead of Polaris, we may have had a marginally less credible strategic deterrent, but our conventional war-fighting capabilities would have been much better - as nuclear bombers are much more readily used in conventional roles, as the V-Force demonstrated.
The lease of pooled Trident D5s (even with a massive 5% research and development contribution) does not seem to put the UK at the forefront of SSBN technology, either.
Please don't add more to the misconceptions that abound. The missiles are pooled (as per the King’s Bay Agreement) but they are not leased. We own the missiles we bought under the Polaris Sales Agreement, as amended. The fact that we won’t necessarily get the same serial No missile back from King’s Bay as the one we landed is irrelevant to our ownership.
