Trident to carry on
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: YES
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
how trident replacement will proceed:
Funding will suddenly only be available of either CVF or SSN programme the navy will of course have to decide.
The winner will then go head to head with funding for a Type 22/23 replacement frigate
The winner of that will go head to head with the SSK(N) replacement programme.
At each stage when the Navy agrees to drop a program all savings made to pay or it will be forfeit to the treasury. thus reducing defence spending.
Funding will suddenly only be available of either CVF or SSN programme the navy will of course have to decide.
The winner will then go head to head with funding for a Type 22/23 replacement frigate
The winner of that will go head to head with the SSK(N) replacement programme.
At each stage when the Navy agrees to drop a program all savings made to pay or it will be forfeit to the treasury. thus reducing defence spending.
The UK has complete control of both targeting and launch of the Trident weapon system. The maintenance of the rockets is shared with the work being done by the Americans, thus the capability cannot be maintained for many years without US agreement. A position clearly outlined in serveral Biographies of leading politicians.
Nonetheless through Aldermaston and BNFL the UK retains the ability to make hydrogen bombs and fit them to whatever delivery vehicle they deem fit be that a missile, air drop or Toyota Hi-Lux.
I myself can't see the need for a Strategic nuclear deterrent and would opt for a much cheaper Tactical nuclear deterrent. But then that's way above my pay grade and role and employer and intelligence. I was a firm supporter of Trident.
Cheers
WWW
Nonetheless through Aldermaston and BNFL the UK retains the ability to make hydrogen bombs and fit them to whatever delivery vehicle they deem fit be that a missile, air drop or Toyota Hi-Lux.
I myself can't see the need for a Strategic nuclear deterrent and would opt for a much cheaper Tactical nuclear deterrent. But then that's way above my pay grade and role and employer and intelligence. I was a firm supporter of Trident.
Cheers
WWW
Originally Posted by Navaleye
Has anyone seen the new Trident ASM variant due to replace Sub Harpoon?
Lupus Domesticus
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NZ
Posts: 520
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re. the independence/support thing, couldn't you just take one to bits, find out how it works, and figure out how to do it youselves? Or does "support" involve....other knowledge? 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry to be late to this one, I've been away.
Violet Club is spot-on: Gordon Brown did NOT commit to another SLBM system to replace Trident - concentrate on what he actually said:
<snip>
the same strength of national purpose we will demonstrate in protecting our security in this Parliament and the long-term - strong in defence in fighting terrorism, upholding NATO, supporting our armed forces at home and abroad, and retaining our independent nuclear deterrent.
<snip>
So nothing at all about the timescales, the cost, the system or anything else. All the rest is spin from "Treasury sources" and the like.
As to the question of whether we should bother at all, that's a rather different thread - if we must, let's just hope that common sense prevails and that whatever platform is used to deliver the capability is MULTIROLE, so that it can be used for something more useful.
S41
Violet Club is spot-on: Gordon Brown did NOT commit to another SLBM system to replace Trident - concentrate on what he actually said:
<snip>
the same strength of national purpose we will demonstrate in protecting our security in this Parliament and the long-term - strong in defence in fighting terrorism, upholding NATO, supporting our armed forces at home and abroad, and retaining our independent nuclear deterrent.
<snip>
So nothing at all about the timescales, the cost, the system or anything else. All the rest is spin from "Treasury sources" and the like.
As to the question of whether we should bother at all, that's a rather different thread - if we must, let's just hope that common sense prevails and that whatever platform is used to deliver the capability is MULTIROLE, so that it can be used for something more useful.
S41
Maybe this article from Richard Beedall will be of interest?
Vanguard SSBN Replacement
In order to keep costs down, a new submarine design has become unlikely for a Vanguard replacement and current thinking assumes an evolution of the Astute design - indeed BAE Systems Submarines has already examined two variants fitted with an extra hull section. The first includes the fitting external to the pressure hull of sixteen Mark 36 Vertical Launch System tubes for missiles such as Tomahawk, and the second includes four Trident II size (86 inch diameter, 36-feet usable length) missile tubes, installed aft of the fin. The later approach is preferred as the large tubes are extremely versatile, alternative to Trident II SLBM’s they could potentially carry a next generation ballistic missile, a multiple all-up round canister accommodating seven Tomahawk cruise missiles per tube, equipment and swimmer vehicles for special forces, Unmanned Underwater Vehicle’s (UUV’s), deployable decoys and sensors, and even encapsulated Unmanned Air Vehicle’s (UAV’s). While a re-role will not be trivial, the new submarines would certainly be far more flexible than the current SSBN/SSN divide permits.
Vanguard SSBN Replacement
In order to keep costs down, a new submarine design has become unlikely for a Vanguard replacement and current thinking assumes an evolution of the Astute design - indeed BAE Systems Submarines has already examined two variants fitted with an extra hull section. The first includes the fitting external to the pressure hull of sixteen Mark 36 Vertical Launch System tubes for missiles such as Tomahawk, and the second includes four Trident II size (86 inch diameter, 36-feet usable length) missile tubes, installed aft of the fin. The later approach is preferred as the large tubes are extremely versatile, alternative to Trident II SLBM’s they could potentially carry a next generation ballistic missile, a multiple all-up round canister accommodating seven Tomahawk cruise missiles per tube, equipment and swimmer vehicles for special forces, Unmanned Underwater Vehicle’s (UUV’s), deployable decoys and sensors, and even encapsulated Unmanned Air Vehicle’s (UAV’s). While a re-role will not be trivial, the new submarines would certainly be far more flexible than the current SSBN/SSN divide permits.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let us count the ways....
WEBF,
With all due respect, an Astute derivate with - count 'em - 4(!) SLBM launch tubes is really pushing the lower limit of what can sensibly be called minimum deterrence.
If we have to have this thing - and given the sums of money potentially involved, the onus should be on proponents to prove it - then hanging some sort of advanced ALCM on a multirole airborne platform or SLCM on an SSN seems much more sensible. But if this is the best pro-nuke case that can be made, it's not a very compelling case, is it?
S41
With all due respect, an Astute derivate with - count 'em - 4(!) SLBM launch tubes is really pushing the lower limit of what can sensibly be called minimum deterrence.
If we have to have this thing - and given the sums of money potentially involved, the onus should be on proponents to prove it - then hanging some sort of advanced ALCM on a multirole airborne platform or SLCM on an SSN seems much more sensible. But if this is the best pro-nuke case that can be made, it's not a very compelling case, is it?
S41
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
And while the left complain about us thinking about a Trident replacement, has anyone remarked on Russia´s plans? Note, from the following, that these are seen as a substitute for conventional forces, maintaining the Russian policy that it does not rule out first use...
Back to the Future Cold War
Russia’s weakened military status will invite other countries—specifically, the United States—to push it around, so a new arms buildup is warranted, Russian President Vladimir Putin asserted in his seventh state-of-the-nation address on May 10.
“It is premature to speak of the end of the arms race,” Putin said, noting that the US spends 25 times as much on its military as Russia does. He called for sharp increases in the production of aircraft and ships and said Russia’s military revitalization is already under way.
“A few years ago,” Putin said, “the armed forces were no longer receiving any modern equipment.” He noted that no new ships were built between 1996 and 2000, that exercises were only carried out “on maps,” and that the war in Chechnya illustrated the woeful condition of Russian forces. “It is our task today to make sure that this never happens again,” Putin said, adding that this year saw the start of mass defense equipment procurement for the Defense Ministry’s needs. Taking a page from the US, he said that Russian forces must be able “to simultaneously fight in global, regional, and—if necessary—also in several local conflicts.”
The Russian military is moving away from conscription toward professional troops, and they will see better training, better housing and pay, and greater social prestige, Putin said. He pledged that by 2008, two-thirds of service members will be “professional” military people with service contracts. The Russian military will be reduced to just one million service members, with reductions to come from retirements. Any other cuts will come from the defense bureaucracy; combat units won’t be touched, he insisted.
However, while he promised a more aggressive program of developing top-quality weapons—Putin said half the Russian defense budget will go toward development—he has no intention of allowing a buildup to bankrupt the nation as it did under the Soviet Union. “We should not repeat the mistakes made by the Soviet Union—the mistakes of the Cold War era—either in politics or defense strategy,” he said.
A military buildup won’t come “at the expense of economic and social development. This is a dead-end road that ultimately leaves a country’s reserves exhausted. There is no future in it. ... We should not go after quantity and simply throw our money to the wind.” Instead, Putin explained that Russia will pursue an “asymmetric” strategy to balance the might of the US, by emphasizing a modernized nuclear force.
He said that Russia will do its utmost to preserve its nuclear deterrent, noting that his country will field two new ballistic-missile submarines this year, the first since the Soviet Union went out of business in 1991. A new sub-based missile, called the Bulava, as well as a new land-based intercontinental ballistic missile, called the Topol-M, are equipped with warheads that can maneuver and defeat US strategic defenses, Putin claimed. Work also is under way on “creating unique high-precision weapons systems and maneuverable combat units that will have an unpredictable flight trajectory.”
“Along with the means for overcoming antimissile defenses that we already have, these new types of arms will enable us to maintain ... the strategic balance of forces,” he asserted......
Back to the Future Cold War
Russia’s weakened military status will invite other countries—specifically, the United States—to push it around, so a new arms buildup is warranted, Russian President Vladimir Putin asserted in his seventh state-of-the-nation address on May 10.
“It is premature to speak of the end of the arms race,” Putin said, noting that the US spends 25 times as much on its military as Russia does. He called for sharp increases in the production of aircraft and ships and said Russia’s military revitalization is already under way.
“A few years ago,” Putin said, “the armed forces were no longer receiving any modern equipment.” He noted that no new ships were built between 1996 and 2000, that exercises were only carried out “on maps,” and that the war in Chechnya illustrated the woeful condition of Russian forces. “It is our task today to make sure that this never happens again,” Putin said, adding that this year saw the start of mass defense equipment procurement for the Defense Ministry’s needs. Taking a page from the US, he said that Russian forces must be able “to simultaneously fight in global, regional, and—if necessary—also in several local conflicts.”
The Russian military is moving away from conscription toward professional troops, and they will see better training, better housing and pay, and greater social prestige, Putin said. He pledged that by 2008, two-thirds of service members will be “professional” military people with service contracts. The Russian military will be reduced to just one million service members, with reductions to come from retirements. Any other cuts will come from the defense bureaucracy; combat units won’t be touched, he insisted.
However, while he promised a more aggressive program of developing top-quality weapons—Putin said half the Russian defense budget will go toward development—he has no intention of allowing a buildup to bankrupt the nation as it did under the Soviet Union. “We should not repeat the mistakes made by the Soviet Union—the mistakes of the Cold War era—either in politics or defense strategy,” he said.
A military buildup won’t come “at the expense of economic and social development. This is a dead-end road that ultimately leaves a country’s reserves exhausted. There is no future in it. ... We should not go after quantity and simply throw our money to the wind.” Instead, Putin explained that Russia will pursue an “asymmetric” strategy to balance the might of the US, by emphasizing a modernized nuclear force.
He said that Russia will do its utmost to preserve its nuclear deterrent, noting that his country will field two new ballistic-missile submarines this year, the first since the Soviet Union went out of business in 1991. A new sub-based missile, called the Bulava, as well as a new land-based intercontinental ballistic missile, called the Topol-M, are equipped with warheads that can maneuver and defeat US strategic defenses, Putin claimed. Work also is under way on “creating unique high-precision weapons systems and maneuverable combat units that will have an unpredictable flight trajectory.”
“Along with the means for overcoming antimissile defenses that we already have, these new types of arms will enable us to maintain ... the strategic balance of forces,” he asserted......
Suspicion breeds confidence
Squirrel41, Surely the real question is the number of MIRVs that they carry. At the moment the UK Tridents are supposed to just three. Placing 12 warheads in four missiles gives you a similar result. Now if you have 2 or three such submarines at sea performing they day job (i.e. SSN role) then you have a more flexible and cost effective solution.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Falmouth
Posts: 1,651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Above all you dont actually have to have a deterant capability....all you have to do is SAY you have a deterant capability....
Poseidon was a good example of that..... we didnt have them until years after we had told everyone they were armed and ready.
Poseidon was a good example of that..... we didnt have them until years after we had told everyone they were armed and ready.
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 5th Jul 2006 at 12:13.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: YES
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Navaleye
Squirrel41, Surely the real question is the number of MIRVs that they carry. At the moment the UK Tridents are supposed to just three. Placing 12 warheads in four missiles gives you a similar result. Now if you have 2 or three such submarines at sea performing they day job (i.e. SSN role) then you have a more flexible and cost effective solution.
The likley hood is we will have 3 Astute class and 2 or 3 modified astute class
An article by Max Hastings - We need less tosh and more facts for a decision on Trident
