Originally Posted by
JFZ90
It is rumoured in the press (Guardian) that trident warheads to go from 180 to 260.
I don't see the benefit in doing this. One story suggests there is a US angle in terms of justifying joint development, but not sure how that really plays out. There might be a technicality in the warhead lifecycle perhaps.
But it just looks like an unnecessary provocation / escalation - which will draw criticism - but I can't see an upside in terms of posture or deterrence and it will just cost more money and could probably have been masked in any case in terms of support considerations.
What's the view? Nothing classified of course. Perhaps there will be some explanation to come.
If that indeed is the policy then I expect some sort of explanation but I share your reservations. I guess it is all in the details, but will it be at the expense of a third of RAF transport aircraft or ships deployed in the Gulf to protect international shipping?
Will the need to escort tankers and other merchant vessels in the Middle East be remembered? We have need to deploy fully armed and worked up frigates and destroyers to protect shipping in the Strait of Hormuz and off the Yemeni coast - within the last couple of years.
Does the issue of advanced weapons in the hand of proxies (eg both Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthis) being given things like anti ship missiles or SAMs count as a 'grey zone threats? What about deniable things like mining from innocent looking vessels, or attack aircraft flown by mercenaries?