Alternatives to Trident: New Paper
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Henra / Willard: I've never claimed that this offers the same level of capability/survivability as CASD Trident. But that's not the exam question here, which is "what's the cheapest way of delivering credible minimum deterrence (so that we can spend the saved cash on the conventional forces)?"
If money were no object, then 4-boat CASD would be uncontentious. It is, so it isn't.
Cornish-Stormrider: it's a good book, referenced at notes 107 & 109, actually. Brave boys indeed at Damascus. But the UK forces' nuclear safety record has been good, so what makes you think it will get worse now?
If money were no object, then 4-boat CASD would be uncontentious. It is, so it isn't.
Cornish-Stormrider: it's a good book, referenced at notes 107 & 109, actually. Brave boys indeed at Damascus. But the UK forces' nuclear safety record has been good, so what makes you think it will get worse now?
"what's the cheapest way of delivering credible minimum deterrence (so that we can spend the saved cash on the conventional forces)?"
Trident, trident, trident. No idea how you can possibly think its anything else to be fair!
Trident, trident, trident. No idea how you can possibly think its anything else to be fair!
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Biggus, the 2500 mile hypothesis ignores how the V-force actually planned to execute the mission. There was no requirement to recover to their departure airfield; indeed it was prudent to assume that one's home base would have been destroyed.
Then the OP' s paper makes the unwarranted assumption that St Petersburg was an easy target as SAM would not be able to defend a coastal target. Now Kronstaft, last time I looked, no longer had a defensive complex but that could soon be rectified.
The Gulf of Finland is narrow and SAM on either shore can cover the whole Gulf. Finish neutrality is irrelevant.
Then the OP' s paper makes the unwarranted assumption that St Petersburg was an easy target as SAM would not be able to defend a coastal target. Now Kronstaft, last time I looked, no longer had a defensive complex but that could soon be rectified.
The Gulf of Finland is narrow and SAM on either shore can cover the whole Gulf. Finish neutrality is irrelevant.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth Western Australia
Age: 57
Posts: 808
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
what's the cheapest way of delivering credible minimum deterrence
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
There is an implicit assumption that dual-capable means you get a second mission cheap. An SSBN is dual-capable as were the Tornados and V-force before that.
What is conveniently forgotten is "nuclear withhold". That part of the force held back as part of a nuclear deterrent is essentially not dual role, like an SSBN in fact.
As said earlier, that held back force becomes part of the use-it or lose-it argument, an argument more likely wit h an aircraft based deterrent.
What is conveniently forgotten is "nuclear withhold". That part of the force held back as part of a nuclear deterrent is essentially not dual role, like an SSBN in fact.
As said earlier, that held back force becomes part of the use-it or lose-it argument, an argument more likely wit h an aircraft based deterrent.
Fine, N-a-B. But you've still not answered the question of "how small a conventional force are you prepared to tolerate to have CASD Trident?" It's a fair question, as asked by LO.
As far as any actual evidence goes, the EPP funds FF2020, which answers the question of what the conventional force level will be. As I noted previously, no-one is particularly happy with that, but we'll have to live with it. It's certainly more credible than a proposal with so many holes in it, it can get picked to pieces in half a day on t'internet.
Speaking of which, as Biggus notes - endorsements from active contributors and nuclear disarmament pressure groups are hardly an independent critique.
If further cuts are required to fund Successor, which btw is pure speculation, not fact, then it will get looked at. One might argue that an 82000-strong army is too large for supporting a Bde over a sustained period, which is probably the max effort we would look to commit to. But that's getting ahead of ourselves.
Now speaking of unanswered questions, perhaps you'd like to detail why the Duff option 2 isn't required, or how you calculated ingress attrition (not just your SAM defence ivo the target) and how much fuel (and hence tanker support) is required to get the resulting number of Dave-C from the UK to Western Russia? Or how much local ORP defence and FP is going to cost? Or how much the additional FJ squadrons (how many does this need?) are going to cost in terms of manpower, infrastructure etc? Or are you assuming F35 replaces Typhoon, in which case who or what is providing for UKAD while your Dave force is dispersed, sitting in ORP HAS getting bombed up?
Take a B for effort, you've obviously put a lot into this. It's just a shame it started with a desired answer and then conducted a study to support that conclusion.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Exiled in England
Age: 48
Posts: 1,015
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok, so we get enough Dave's to carry out the mission.
We develop our own new air carried bucket of sunshine.
We end up in the terrible unthinkable position of having to use it at say........
Manila, ( who knows what the world will bring) any other number of nations could have been chosen but that was picked at random.
So, do we sail the PoW or the Tin Lizzie all the way out there to be in reasonable striking range or do we overfly a whole load of other countries carrying said sunshine?
This Credible deterrent - not worth the paper it's written on.
And in reply to your question ThinkTanker, what about the 177 that was rolled into the ditch? What about the accidents all throughout the deterrence history of the RAF with specials.
You have three options - replace Trident, modify the Astute and develop either a new TLAM-N or fit an ICBM into it, or third option is to develop a new air weapon and hopefully have a Dave to hang it off.
I hate the damn things, but I know I am glad we have the bomber.
The whole point of deterrance is to say, it is always there, always safe and always available.
This spurious argument over funding is a red herring, how about we sort out welfare, and the billions wasted in business welfare rather than giving the other budgets more of a kicking.
The shiny arses at Westminster need to decide on national priorities and fund accordingly, and if they are going to keep sending the troops out then they have to pay for it properly.
A maritime nation with 19 FF/DD, no MPA and Gordys vote winners still not finished and no jets for them........
We should have just bought the designs for the Ford class from Chinese hackers and built one of them and fitted it with Rhino's
One more thing- where would we home base the new bombs and their jets, coz Pompey won't have them in the yard when either of the ships are home....
Can't store them at Guzz as there is no way to get them into the air and onto the carrier, and the carrier won't fit all the way up to Ernesettle......
No point storing the bombs at Coulport......
So you need all those dispersed air bases that are basing Dave to be upgraded and equipped to carry the bombs, properly dispersed.
Your plan, sir, is laughable......
We develop our own new air carried bucket of sunshine.
We end up in the terrible unthinkable position of having to use it at say........
Manila, ( who knows what the world will bring) any other number of nations could have been chosen but that was picked at random.
So, do we sail the PoW or the Tin Lizzie all the way out there to be in reasonable striking range or do we overfly a whole load of other countries carrying said sunshine?
This Credible deterrent - not worth the paper it's written on.
And in reply to your question ThinkTanker, what about the 177 that was rolled into the ditch? What about the accidents all throughout the deterrence history of the RAF with specials.
You have three options - replace Trident, modify the Astute and develop either a new TLAM-N or fit an ICBM into it, or third option is to develop a new air weapon and hopefully have a Dave to hang it off.
I hate the damn things, but I know I am glad we have the bomber.
The whole point of deterrance is to say, it is always there, always safe and always available.
This spurious argument over funding is a red herring, how about we sort out welfare, and the billions wasted in business welfare rather than giving the other budgets more of a kicking.
The shiny arses at Westminster need to decide on national priorities and fund accordingly, and if they are going to keep sending the troops out then they have to pay for it properly.
A maritime nation with 19 FF/DD, no MPA and Gordys vote winners still not finished and no jets for them........
We should have just bought the designs for the Ford class from Chinese hackers and built one of them and fitted it with Rhino's
One more thing- where would we home base the new bombs and their jets, coz Pompey won't have them in the yard when either of the ships are home....
Can't store them at Guzz as there is no way to get them into the air and onto the carrier, and the carrier won't fit all the way up to Ernesettle......
No point storing the bombs at Coulport......
So you need all those dispersed air bases that are basing Dave to be upgraded and equipped to carry the bombs, properly dispersed.
Your plan, sir, is laughable......
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have read this thread and perused quickly the document in question, with great interest.
IMHO we need to get out of the nuclear weapons business.
We should see the end of Trident as an opportunity to rid ourselves of these unnecessary items.
IMHO we need to get out of the nuclear weapons business.
We should see the end of Trident as an opportunity to rid ourselves of these unnecessary items.
Last edited by BillHicksRules; 24th Aug 2015 at 10:30.
If we look at which possible Opponents would warrant deterrence (Russia, maybe China) since they might be in a realistic position to pose a credible threat to Western Europe then I carefully suggest the only credible thing is an SSBN considering their Air Defence Systems, Size and Distances.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
And is China a credible global nuclear threat? China's global economic domination makes nuclear war both unlikely, unnecessary and economically suicidal.*
Russia,OTOH, might benefit from nuclear blackmail, but would the threat be viable?
*China-US confrontation however is a different matter and should not be an element in British deterrent policy.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
China's global economic domination
People claimed Japan was going to do that in the 1970s, fell apart. China faces the same problems in greater measure - ageing population; lack of infrastructure and rising wages as system cannot catch up; price of external raw resources.
Similarly India is postulated as the next great power - but the same issues are arising.
Don't right off the 21st century as that of the USA just yet.
*I can paste various links if people are to lazy to do their own research...
This spurious argument over funding is a red herring, how about we sort out welfare, and the billions wasted in business welfare rather than giving the other budgets more of a kicking.
That is a bit of a dead end. You can go and campaign for more GDP for the military, which would solve all of your problems. But if it doesn't happen you still have to set priorities.
N-a-B - I understand that under the current plan, Successor is funded. However, that doesn't address the likelihood of overruns, let alone the fact that the current plan (as it will emerge from SDSR15) is apt to leave many unhappy as it is: No MPAs, 48+N Dave B to support carriers (one or two? One is a bit silly) where once there were Tornados and Harriers.
That is a bit of a dead end. You can go and campaign for more GDP for the military, which would solve all of your problems. But if it doesn't happen you still have to set priorities.
N-a-B - I understand that under the current plan, Successor is funded. However, that doesn't address the likelihood of overruns, let alone the fact that the current plan (as it will emerge from SDSR15) is apt to leave many unhappy as it is: No MPAs, 48+N Dave B to support carriers (one or two? One is a bit silly) where once there were Tornados and Harriers.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth Western Australia
Age: 57
Posts: 808
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And is China a credible global nuclear threat? China's global economic domination makes nuclear war both unlikely, unnecessary and economically suicidal.*
China-US confrontation however is a different matter and should not be an element in British deterrent policy.
History is a merry go round.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
ORAC, no I am not. Look at virtuality any product, it is made in China. European wholesalers source supplies from the lowest cost provider. Increasingly that provider is Chinese.
RH,no doubt true but would our esteemed leader stand to the threat?
RH,no doubt true but would our esteemed leader stand to the threat?
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Exiled in England
Age: 48
Posts: 1,015
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree we have to set priorities - isn't that the job of our wonderful elected representatives ?
It is also their job to spend our money - and to do so wisely....
Neither of the major parties have done either of these things for a very long time
Now should they say your defence budget is C then it is the job of our leaders to say " in that case we can give you Y. Should you want 2X then the budget is 2Y "
But we are living in a fools paradise if for one minute we thought wow, we have saved three billion on this capability - we have three billion to spend on this. What will happen is it will be usurped by the pet project of the hour to win votes.
I do wonder how many votes the new carriers gained Gordy and whether or not it would have made more fiscal sense to say to all the voters - vote for me and I will give you a cheque for a thousand pounds tax free.....
It is just a shame that the Green Party are a bunch of fruit loops that I wouldn't trust to run a church fete stall as at the moment they are the only party I would vote for.
It is also their job to spend our money - and to do so wisely....
Neither of the major parties have done either of these things for a very long time
Now should they say your defence budget is C then it is the job of our leaders to say " in that case we can give you Y. Should you want 2X then the budget is 2Y "
But we are living in a fools paradise if for one minute we thought wow, we have saved three billion on this capability - we have three billion to spend on this. What will happen is it will be usurped by the pet project of the hour to win votes.
I do wonder how many votes the new carriers gained Gordy and whether or not it would have made more fiscal sense to say to all the voters - vote for me and I will give you a cheque for a thousand pounds tax free.....
It is just a shame that the Green Party are a bunch of fruit loops that I wouldn't trust to run a church fete stall as at the moment they are the only party I would vote for.
I do wonder how many votes the new carriers gained Gordy and whether or not it would have made more fiscal sense to say to all the voters - vote for me and I will give you a cheque for a thousand pounds tax free.....
However, that doesn't address the likelihood of overruns, let alone the fact that the current plan (as it will emerge from SDSR15) is apt to leave many unhappy as it is: No MPAs, 48+N Dave B to support carriers (one or two? One is a bit silly) where once there were Tornados and Harriers.
FF2020 FJ force structure as of now is 7 squadrons - 5 Typhoon, 2 Dave. There are no like for like numerical replacements for the Tonkas or puffer jets. If we're lucky, there may be a realisation that won't cut it, but actually funding that is likely to be an SDSR 2020 issue. Whatever you think you might save by binning CASD would be swallowed up by any non-CASD deterrent replacement.
So you'd still have a funding issue. And a non-credible deterrent if you bin CASD.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Politics is no longer the turf of men of vision who want the best for the county and its people, the men who take tough decisions with the long term prosperity of the nation have all gone to be replaced by selfish moral pigmys who just hang on to power to keep a job.
Just to look at the cheapest to implement policy of the current Govenment, they told us the war on the motorist would stop but bigger and better speed cameras are back and I see no 80mph speed limit ....... All this because some focus group has told them it might offend some minority group of voters.
No one will take the desperately needed decision on new runways at the London airports.
With this bunch of low life in power how do you expect to get any decisions that require backbone and vision made ? In May we have a tough choice, in that we have to pick the party who is the least worse for the future of the nation.
The only thing I can garentee is the politicians will see tham selfs alright and will do that by squeezing the defence budget even tighter.
Just to look at the cheapest to implement policy of the current Govenment, they told us the war on the motorist would stop but bigger and better speed cameras are back and I see no 80mph speed limit ....... All this because some focus group has told them it might offend some minority group of voters.
No one will take the desperately needed decision on new runways at the London airports.
With this bunch of low life in power how do you expect to get any decisions that require backbone and vision made ? In May we have a tough choice, in that we have to pick the party who is the least worse for the future of the nation.
The only thing I can garentee is the politicians will see tham selfs alright and will do that by squeezing the defence budget even tighter.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Politics is no longer the turf of men of vision who want the best for the county and its people, the men who take tough decisions with the long term prosperity of the nation have all gone to be replaced by selfish moral pigmys who just hang on to power to keep a job."
When was it ever any different?
Read Trollope, read a biography of Disraeli, or Churchill before 1935
they're all the same and always have been
When was it ever any different?
Read Trollope, read a biography of Disraeli, or Churchill before 1935
they're all the same and always have been
Join Date: May 2007
Location: england
Age: 58
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Get Real
Short-range aircraft with nuclear weapons, offering a viable deterrent against a near-pear or peer adversary? If you think so, then I suggest that you do not have a clue about the threats that are out there. That a civilian organisation, with all the so called academic clout it espouses, really thinks it can conduct useful analysis is, frankly, preposterous.
I await your informed and valid responses.
I await your informed and valid responses.