Trident or Carriers?

[BillHicksRules]

If it comes to a choice between these two which do folks feel we should go for?

[Occasional Aviator]

I'd say Carriers. With RAF jets flying off them!

[sp6]

Cat & trap boats with Navalised Eurofighters!

If the Hawker Typhoon, in a much modified mkII guise became the Tempest, and then the Tempest in lightweight form became the Fury, which in navalised form became the Sea Fury........

Therefore, navalised eurofighter = Sea Fury II !

[rogerk]

You are not going catch many Taliban in old pick up trucks with AK47's with either of them !!
Both Trident and the carriers are part of the old "cold war" thinking.
The Russians ain't coming believe me but we are getting a bit of a run around from the little buggers in the beat up Toyota's !!
:ok::ok:

[glad rag]

The Russians ain't coming believe me

Possibly apart from tear arsing around the North Sea/Atlantic to annoy us, all they have to do is throttle the gas supply.....

[Ivan Rogov]

Some might argue that travelling 4000 odd miles to catch a man in his Toyota pick armed only with an AK47 isn't exactly forward thinking or vital to our countries survival! We need to coin a phrase that makes the current campaign sound out dated so the politicians can axe some more capability :ugh:
The "cold war" is most definitely over, however those that throw the phrase around as an excuse to get rid of certain equipment invariably can not back up their cases. In the next 10 to 20 years we/NATO/Europe are highly likely to be involved in hostilities over energy or resources, in our part of the world Russia will probably feature as it is a large supplier and is already flexing its muscles.
By countering another countries military capability we can prevent them from becoming a bit too ambitious, deterrence exists at all levels! You could claim we are deterring terrorists in Afg at the moment.

[rogerk]

I agree with you Ivan Rogov but would faster smaller patrol boats and frigate back up not be an option ??
Remember UK is an island.

[Squirrel 41]

BHR,

Or neither?

Pace Mr Boffin and Messers Pontius Nav, Tuc et al, I'm aware I've been being very boring on this subject. But to answer your question, I think you need to look at this in the round. And forgive the length, and after this I promise to shut up about the whole thing!

Trident
IMHO Trident is a political tool, rather than a weapon system per se. It obviously needs to demontrably work if it is to deter, (ignoring for a second the separate debate of who, if anyone, Trident deters), but the effect is political, not military. As I understand it, this was the basis of the decision for Trident (and potentially Polaris, though I'd have to look it up) to be funded centrally from outside the MoD budget - in which case it largely became a free good to defence, and therefore the MoD/RN were more than happy to have it - but mostly because it was largely free.

Indeed, as Military Task 1.2(?) Trident was the gift that kept on giving: the MoD was able to hang all sorts of "supporting" capabilities on protecting Trident, essentially ring-fencing their budgets - mostly in the ASW realm - FF/MCM/MPA spring to mind.

All of this logic changed once HMT moved the replacement of Trident back onto the MoD's budget after the election. Trident for the first time in SDSR has had to make its case for funding in competition with conventional capabilities that are actually useful day-to-day, unless Dr Fox et al were prepared to give it a pass. Speaking personally, I think that this pass was a serious mistake, and that we should have taken the opportunity to exit the Trident club that President Obama's moves towards nuclear disarmament offer us, safe in the knowledge that we can't get booted off the UN Security Council unless we vote for it, and that we have many more useful things to spend the money on in the MoD.

Please note: this is not a call for unilateral nuclear disarmament - rather, this policy envisages the UK using its nuclear expertise to help disarmament verification initiaitives worldwide, whilst retaining a breakout nuclear capability in the (unlikely) event that we would need it at 2-5 years' notice to produce an air-droppable capability.

QE Class / CVF

A variation of the same argument applies; I don't know anyone in either shade of blue, or RM green (or even any Brown Jobs) who are opposed to the carriers in principle. If we were spending 5% of GDP on defence - c. £65bn p.a. - then I'd like nothing more than a proper CVBG centered around a QE-class with 3 x T45 and 5 x T23/T26 with 1 or 2 SSNs and 45 Dave-C, 3 E-2D, 1 x C-2A, 2 x Fleet Tanker etc etc.

But we're not spending £65bn (nor is any serious political party proposing to spend this kind of money) on defence. And against that basis, the issue is simply the compromises that are required within the available budget - so the question is not "Is CVF a good idea?" but rather "Is CVF a better idea than these other things that will be binned to fund CVF?"

If that cost is the whole amphib fleet and reducing the FF/DD fleet to 12 hulls, then I'm not sure it is, and I'd use the CVF Terms of Business Agreement (TOBA) to build the fleet tankers and then T26 in the UK.

Again, apologies for the length.

S41

[moggiee]

Carriers for me.

The Trident replacement will cost a fortune and never stand a hope in hell of being used (thank God). Trident (and its replacement) will do nothing to prevent terrorist attacks on the UK but will gobble up financial resources that could be used elsewhere.

The carriers will also do little or nothing to keep us safe from terrorism, but at least if we get into a punch up again we can use them and their assets - unlike the white elephant ICBM systems.

Perhaps, though, it would be better to spend the money on a big pile of cruise missiles, APCs, body armour, better firearms for our troops, some decent communications equipment etc. We could even buy some guns and ammunition for the Typhoon.

[Lonewolf_50]

If the choice boils down to that, I'll recommend, from this side of the pond, that you go with the carriers.

Per dollar/pound spent, far more flexible.

[cokecan]

carriers for me - i like trident, i think its a superb system that provides the ultimate, and relatively cheap, security guarentee in the sphere of another nation state making total war on our nation state. however, my own view is that nation-on-nation total war is a relatively small, and relatively unlikely part of our defensive (in the widest sense) needs.

the carriers are, as part of a large, powerful, littoral and blue water navy are a much larger, and much more likely to be needed, part of out defensive needs.

i'd prefer both, but i'd rather see a large, usable navy with a small 'stay at home' nuclear SLCM/ALCM arsenal than a small, unusable navy with 4 bombers and 150 warheads.

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Squirrel 41. You've just annoyed me; you're talking sense.

I wonder how far 1SL's argument would go: mag the V boats, keep the carriers and (what's left of) the Fleet.

[MATELO]

One shifts around on top of the water doing nothing.

The other shifts around under the water doing nothing.

Shut your eyes and take a pick.

[Thelma Viaduct]

The future of afghan is containment not control.

Having anything to do with the spams & putting UK soldiers lives at risk for that sh1thole was stupid before casualties started, let alone after the fact.

Money spent on intel, uav technology and bombs will look after it.

Leave the locals to live out their existence in biblical times, and bomb **** out of the 'terrorist' training camps as they appear.

Spend the saved cash on yer carriers, associated aircraft and big bang subs and try not to get involved in any pointless/expensive/knobhead derived wars for the next 20 years.

Defence sorted, Job Jobbed.

[Willard Whyte]

If it did boil down to a choice between the two then I'd have to say carriers. Nukes could be carried by other means, although they wouldn't have the instant global reach and relative PK* of Trident. There is also the question of whether an attack on a multi-role platform, such as an Astute carrying nuclear warheads that could be retro fitted to BGM-109s , would constitute a conventional attack or an attack on the deterrent.

*based on likelihood of getting through, including platform survivability.

[Pontius Navigator]

There is also the question of whether an attack on a multi-role platform, . . . would constitute a conventional attack or an attack on the deterrent.

There is a precedent.

When the deterrent resided with the RAF it was accepted that deployment of the bombers was escalatory but that an attack on the main base would also be considered as escalatory.

Where a submarine was dual-capable then it would have to be assumed that it was in a deterrent role until such time as it became apparent that it was not. For instance an Astute on patrol in the Indian Ocean could be assumed to be in a deterrent role whereas approaching a task group or a potential enemy littoral would itself be provocative and something that a deterrent would seek to avoid. In this latter case we would be foolish to consider an attack on it as a counter-deterrent force attack.

[Willard Whyte]

Whilst what you say is true I'm sure we could both envisage situations where things could be less clear cut.

[alwayzinit]

Lets be totally mercenary for a moment..........

HMG and UK inc is totally skint at the moment. The only financial project on the horizon at present that would pay off the overdraft in one go is the oil hunt in the South Atlantic.

With the present SDR plan of reducing the RN to a bath tub navy even if the world's largest oil field was found around those wind swept islands we would not be able to impose our soveriegnty over the find.

The point being one has to speculate to accumulate.

If our 4th form government decides to effectively tie our boots laces together then we we will only have ourselves to blame when some little tick comes and pushes us over.

As a country we HAVE to cut our suit according to the cloth.

Unlimited universial benefits for all are great IF we could afford them, same goes for the NHS and the MOD.

The problem is that nobody NEEDS a boob job on the NHS, nobody has the RIGHT IVF to have a family, nobody has the RIGHT to have someone else support them indefinately without getting off their backsides and getting a job.

Sadly neither the NHS and the DHSS (or whatever its called now!) will NOT protect our overseas interests and future wealth. Having a realistic defence/deterence will.

I believe Dave and his chums have got the cart before the horse completely.:*

As regards to Ivan................................he not going away is he.

[Grimweasel]

Has to be keep the Subs!

The carriers are a sitting duck - £5Bn would be wasted with one Tac Nuke in the right place (be it torpedo or a/c delivered weapon). At least the Subs have the luxury of being hidden and a damn site less detectable that an bloody great carrier lacking the fleet of frigates (or whatever those fish heads call them ships) to defend it because of cuts to fund it?! The Sea Lords have lost their marbles.

The new weapon we should be concerning ourselves with it the laptop - just look at the furore around the Stuknexx virus affecting Iran etc. Maybe our dependence on GPS too? The Chinks have developed GPS
satellite killing missiles as they know it's our Achilles heel!

[Dysonsphere]

Would have to be the carriers I feel in todays climate the nuke are unlikely to ever be used while the carriers would be usefull. As an aside I heard 1/2 the dosh has allready been spent just in case to make cancelation hard to do. Anyway you could hang a nuke an a F35 (if we ever buy them that is) will do the same job as a Trident just takes longer thats all.

[Easy Street]

The Chinks have developed GPS satellite killing missiles as they know it's our Achilles heel!

The only satellites to ever have been shot down have been in low earth orbit - the Chinese test was against an old weather satellite at about 550 miles altitude. GPS satellites are in medium earth orbit, at an altitude of about 12,600 miles. There will need to be a significant ramping-up of antisat missile technology before GPS-killing becomes a realistic possibility.

[Pontius Navigator]

Easy Street -soft kill.

The counter theory is that you would lose as much as you would gain if you disabled the GPS.

[Saintsman]

The subs are only any good if the powers that be are prepared to use Trident.

It's easy to send a carrier somewhere but to press the red button, that's something else. The further we move away from the end of the second world war (Japan), the harder it will be for today's politicians to use it.

If they are not really prepared to use it (when it comes to the crunch) then you may as well get rid of it.

[Willard Whyte]

The only satellites to ever have been shot down have been in low earth orbit - the Chinese test was against an old weather satellite at about 550 miles altitude. GPS satellites are in medium earth orbit, at an altitude of about 12,600 miles. There will need to be a significant ramping-up of antisat missile technology before GPS-killing becomes a realistic possibility.

I do wonder whether China's anti sat 'test' was to see how Western powers reacted to an attempted swamping of their ballistic missile detection radars. What would get through if several defunct sats were destroyed as a precursor to an ICBM launch.

[davejb]

The counter theory is that you would lose as much as you would gain if you disabled the GPS

Provided you make use of GPS yourself - so if I were the head Chinese chappie I'd make sure my forces could operate sans GPS, lots of people and tanks and stuff... pretty much the way the Chinese seem to operate, as far as I recall....

The 'counter theory', I suspect, suffers from that well known shortcoming of assuming the enemy will behave the way we do, and they usually don't.

Dave

[Grimweasel]

Indeed Davejb - I think the Chinese could have cornered the market with older technologies (pre-GPS, Dopplar, Sextants, Dead Reckoning etc) and their 'swarm' tactics of large numbers deluging a foe, just like the Russians always intended. Everything we run these days is GPS dependent - there will no doubt be a new technology developed that allows the signal to be blocked, military or civil codes. I recall when the sextants were taken off the Herc flight decks as they were no longer used or their uses taught. Our heavy reliance on technology to administer everything from the electricity supply to the missile defence systems and air traffic control is at peril unless we counter this threat very soon. Trident could very soon be a redundant and hollow form of MAD, when a bloke with a intranet connection or USB stick could unleash binary hell on your country's infrastructure!!

[Dryce]

The subs are only any good if the powers that be are prepared to use Trident.


It's a bit more subtle. A deterrent is only any good if any would be perpetrator of an attack is confident that you (a) have the effective means to retaliate and (b) that you would use it.

It doesn't actually matter whether TPTB would use it or not - it is the assessment by that would be perpetrator that matters.


It's easy to send a carrier somewhere but to press the red button, that's something else. The further we move away from the end of the second world war (Japan), the harder it will be for today's politicians to use it.


If your weapon is retaliatory and you have been subject to a devastating attack then pressing that red button isn't going to be so hard.

A lot happened between 1939 and 1945 that made it a lot easier to press the button in 1945.

[Melchett01]

I'd go for carriers and a slightly smaller 'big stick' in the form of nuclear tipped TLAM type weapon from an SSN coupled with an air delivered option such as Storm Shadow.

Whilst it is highly unlikely that we would ever use the nuclear option, you only have to look at how attitudes changed towards North Korea once it became apparent that they were a nuclear power. And that is bearing in mind the size of their nuclear arsenal in comparison to western and even FSU standards is incredibly primitive. Which to my mind, suggests that perceptions and even just being able to sow seeds of doubt in your enemy's mind is probably enough of a deterrent.

[Dryce]

I'd go for carriers and a slightly smaller 'big stick' in the form of nuclear tipped TLAM type weapon from an SSN coupled with an air delivered option such as Storm Shadow.


So you have a handful of SSNs - which is all the navy has.

Do you then reserve a portion of that force to carry a deterence configured warload on regular patrols? If they're dedicated to the task then you need extra boats and crews - bit like Trident but smaller.

Or do you think you can pull your SSNs back to base and rearm them for the nuclear role as needed - assuming the base is still left for them to return to? That's not a deterrent.

And then once you deploy a SSN to undertake a mission it has to transit further possibly approach a coastline with a weapon that is currently subsonic and carries single warhead and is vulnerable to interception.

Trident works better for several reasons. The missiles have long range. They are just about as unstoppable as they can be. They pack a multiple warhead punch. They are part of a submarine + weapon system that involves complete lifetime planning because they are dedicated to a much tighter defined purpose.

If you were going to try and make a SSN solution seriously work you'd probably end up discovering Trident was much better value - unless your real objective is just to gain more SSNs and pay lip service to a nuclear strike or deterrent capability.

[Pontius Navigator]

The point about GPS and asymetric warfare is valid however the Chinese will have their own GPS so they will be independent of the US SA buy still vulnerable to service interuptions.

Global navigation satellite system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_navigation_satellite_system)

[Flyingblind]

For me;
Bin Trident upgrade - you guys cannot afford it with currant funding,
Use the money saved to convert the four boomers to SSGN's aka USN,
If sunshine option still desired by UK Government then charge a certain UK maker of cruise missiles to convert current version to one that will carry 'Sunshine' warhead,

Maintain agreement of the two carriers plus supporting ships infrastructure.

Afghanistan is relatively short term in the scheme of things, RN needs to look at the next fight not this one.

Others, I feel are correct when pointing at future fights over resources distant from UK hence the requirement for deployable assets that can actively assist operations.

[Jig Peter]

Saw a report online today that "persons (or state) unknown recently cyber-smashed Iran's nuke programme - could it have been that "stuxnet" (splng?) thingy ???
Woe unto all, the cyber-monsters are loose !
:eek::eek::eek:

[Easy Street]

Flyingblind,
Bin Trident upgrade - you guys cannot afford it with currant funding,

I wonder if HM Government agrees with your raisining? :}

[Lima Juliet]

One small problem with the TLAM argument:

1. TLAM-N went out of service in 1992.
2. Of the recent conventional tipped TLAMs fired in Kosovo and Iraq some were shot down - they're subsonic and quite easy pickings for a SAM or PD equipped fighter.
3. They have very small warheads that are more tactical than strategic.
4. If used in a retalitory strike then they would strike after the 2nd or 3rd wave of ICBMs. Probably too late.

Sorry, but I think nuke tipped TLAM is a dumb idea to replace Trident, you may as well do as a Radio 4 comedian suggested on Friday and just "pretend we have Trident" - it would have more effect!

LJ

[Flyingblind]

Easy Street,

Well done that man, you where the only one to spot my deliberate mistake.

Box of chocolates and complementary bottle of Pommeroys finest dispatched post haste.

[A2QFI]

We seem to need Trident to give us status on the World stage. It is thus a political weapon/tool. If we need it it should not come out of the Defence budget. The governemnt of the day should fund and supply it and the RN should operate it on their behalf

[Willard Whyte]

We seem to need Trident to give us status on the World stage. It is thus a political weapon/tool. If we need it it should not come out of the Defence budget. The governemnt of the day should fund and supply it and the RN should operate it on their behalf.

Better still, have the sub crew made up of MPs and civil servants. What could possibly go wrong.