Alternatives to Trident: New Paper
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: bristol
Age: 56
Posts: 1,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While this thread has had some very detailed or technical replies, the basic fact that Britain couldn't rely on ANY aircraft borne deterrent can't be changed.
If we were talking of North Korea then the airfields would be secure places, and would be protected by an IADS. We are talking about the UK, with carriers that would require most of their air compliment to protect themselves from a major adversary and airfields that are very easy to disable.
It seems to always come as a surprise to some that the RAF could be stopped in its tracks very quickly. I've heard lots of tales of tactics using low, medium and high altitude. Heard about DAS and evasive manoeuvres but none of these worried me. I still knew the UK was a free democracy, had only a few air bases and nowhere near enough RAF regiment to protect them from organised attack.
The RAF regiment/RAF FP don't even have enough manpower to protect airfields from rifle/grenade attack, let alone anything a bit more powerful of with a slightly longer range.
The new F35 may have super duper stealth and an advanced DAS suit, but sadly that won't help an aircraft that needs to fly from a known I'm moveable base, and use a known immovable runway.
Even something that could realistically disperse like the harriers could (with non heavy loads/fuel weights) are easy to find and track in today's western society with nothing more complex than an iPhone.
Let's not kid ourselves that in an all out conflict against an organised opponent that any RAF airfield would be operational for very long. The saddest part is that by only causing very limited damage the effects would be disproportionate as the RAF has been being stripped of its damage repair capabilities in successive defence budgets.
Many of you will have seen for yourselves that SF can quite easily get themselves inside an RAF station. Some posters here have come face to face with SF on top of or within buildings on the station during exercises. When the SF are using live rounds and have indirect fire weapons it's easy to see just how vulnerable an RAF station really is.
An airborne deterrent in a Western society with free movement just isn't a credible option IMHO. It's not even a question of numbers or cost, it's simply the fact it wouldn't work. The fact we don't have an air delivered weapon, enough aircraft or a training system seem to pale in comparison.
If we were talking of North Korea then the airfields would be secure places, and would be protected by an IADS. We are talking about the UK, with carriers that would require most of their air compliment to protect themselves from a major adversary and airfields that are very easy to disable.
It seems to always come as a surprise to some that the RAF could be stopped in its tracks very quickly. I've heard lots of tales of tactics using low, medium and high altitude. Heard about DAS and evasive manoeuvres but none of these worried me. I still knew the UK was a free democracy, had only a few air bases and nowhere near enough RAF regiment to protect them from organised attack.
The RAF regiment/RAF FP don't even have enough manpower to protect airfields from rifle/grenade attack, let alone anything a bit more powerful of with a slightly longer range.
The new F35 may have super duper stealth and an advanced DAS suit, but sadly that won't help an aircraft that needs to fly from a known I'm moveable base, and use a known immovable runway.
Even something that could realistically disperse like the harriers could (with non heavy loads/fuel weights) are easy to find and track in today's western society with nothing more complex than an iPhone.
Let's not kid ourselves that in an all out conflict against an organised opponent that any RAF airfield would be operational for very long. The saddest part is that by only causing very limited damage the effects would be disproportionate as the RAF has been being stripped of its damage repair capabilities in successive defence budgets.
Many of you will have seen for yourselves that SF can quite easily get themselves inside an RAF station. Some posters here have come face to face with SF on top of or within buildings on the station during exercises. When the SF are using live rounds and have indirect fire weapons it's easy to see just how vulnerable an RAF station really is.
An airborne deterrent in a Western society with free movement just isn't a credible option IMHO. It's not even a question of numbers or cost, it's simply the fact it wouldn't work. The fact we don't have an air delivered weapon, enough aircraft or a training system seem to pale in comparison.
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: England
Age: 14
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some people have convinced themselves that abolishing Trident means more money for conventional forces. In reality, the conventional forces will just continue to be cut as they always do, and BOTH lots of money will go into paying for things that buy Tory votes like pensions or a national care service.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
New UK Defense Agency to Oversee Nuclear Missile Subs Construction
LONDON - A new British Ministry of Defence agency being set up to oversee the construction of a fleet of nuclear missile submarines for the Royal Navy will start operations next April with ex-railway construction boss Robert Holden named as the interim chairman.
In an annual update to Parliament on progress with Britain’s £31 billion (US $38.4 billion) nuclear deterrent program, Defence Secretary Michael Fallon said that subject to formal approval staff currently employed on the project at the Defence Equipment & Support (DE&S) organization will start moving across to the new executive agency from April 1.
“The new body will undergo a process of transformation and be optimized for submarine delivery and support under the leadership of a new CEO that MoD now intends to recruit. To assist in the process of establishing the body, Robert Holden has been appointed as interim chairman,” Fallon told lawmakers in a report Dec. 20.
Holden’s LinkedIn entry describes him as holding a number of non-executive and consultancy roles. His assignments in the UK cover some of the nation’s largest infrastructure programs, including work on High Speed 1 and High Speed 2 rail programs. He was also chairman of Crossrail, a major project involving the construction of a new rail line across London. The executive has also worked on projects associated with the Royal Navy Type 26 frigate and Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier programs and has been involved in several aspects of the nuclear industry, including in his early career working at what is now BAE Systems submarine yard in northwest England.....
LONDON - A new British Ministry of Defence agency being set up to oversee the construction of a fleet of nuclear missile submarines for the Royal Navy will start operations next April with ex-railway construction boss Robert Holden named as the interim chairman.
In an annual update to Parliament on progress with Britain’s £31 billion (US $38.4 billion) nuclear deterrent program, Defence Secretary Michael Fallon said that subject to formal approval staff currently employed on the project at the Defence Equipment & Support (DE&S) organization will start moving across to the new executive agency from April 1.
“The new body will undergo a process of transformation and be optimized for submarine delivery and support under the leadership of a new CEO that MoD now intends to recruit. To assist in the process of establishing the body, Robert Holden has been appointed as interim chairman,” Fallon told lawmakers in a report Dec. 20.
Holden’s LinkedIn entry describes him as holding a number of non-executive and consultancy roles. His assignments in the UK cover some of the nation’s largest infrastructure programs, including work on High Speed 1 and High Speed 2 rail programs. He was also chairman of Crossrail, a major project involving the construction of a new rail line across London. The executive has also worked on projects associated with the Royal Navy Type 26 frigate and Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier programs and has been involved in several aspects of the nuclear industry, including in his early career working at what is now BAE Systems submarine yard in northwest England.....
Huh?
So, if we can do this for a sub procurement, what's stopping us doing it for a carrier or fighter or MPA? I suppose it's one way of focusing attention on the job in hand. I wonder what DE&S think of this?!
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Reading
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apologies if this has been mentioned. I've skim read the thread and don't think I've seen it...
The UK government has gone down the road of Trident because it is a credible 'second strike' system the whole point of which would only be used in the event of a nuclear attack on the UK or one of its allies that warrants a full scale nuclear response. An aggressor does not know where the return volley will come from therefore can never target it as part of the first strike. There in lies the deterrent. If the Nuclear deterrent lies with aircraft carriers, the whereabouts of which are easily found, then they can be targeted, which destroys the actual deterrent part. I guess what I'm saying is, that if we want a deterrent (and I think we definitely should have one!) then it has to be a second strike system to be effective and therefore has to be a boomer.
The UK government has gone down the road of Trident because it is a credible 'second strike' system the whole point of which would only be used in the event of a nuclear attack on the UK or one of its allies that warrants a full scale nuclear response. An aggressor does not know where the return volley will come from therefore can never target it as part of the first strike. There in lies the deterrent. If the Nuclear deterrent lies with aircraft carriers, the whereabouts of which are easily found, then they can be targeted, which destroys the actual deterrent part. I guess what I'm saying is, that if we want a deterrent (and I think we definitely should have one!) then it has to be a second strike system to be effective and therefore has to be a boomer.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
That's because it has been done to death. If you can't be bothered to read this and the other extant threads on the subject, and want to start to regurgitate the same vast amount of discussion on the subject again, please don't.......
Otherwise it will end up being retitled the "Trident Hamsterwheel".....
Otherwise it will end up being retitled the "Trident Hamsterwheel".....
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: England
Posts: 924
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How much is it costing again?
Trident replacement? How much? I've just driven home on an unlit A road where the white lines have long ago faded out, no cats eyes and everyone except me drives at 80.
Better spent public money......
Better spent public money......
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
POLITICO:
The next big Labour row: Terrific scoop this morning from the Yorkshire Post’s Arj Singh, who reveals a plan is being hatched by Jeremy Corbyn’s Shadow Peace Minister Fabian Hamilton to shift the party’s position on Trident.
Labour’s current policy — heavily guided by trade unions like Unite — is to back the renewal of Trident even though Corbyn himself is a veteran anti-nukes campaigner. But Singh reveals Hamilton is working on a “defense diversification strategy” in which high-skilled defense workers would be retrained for industries like health technology.
Asked if that could pave the way for unions to change position and support the scrapping of Trident, Hamilton says: “I sincerely hope so. I have always said party policy says we should renew Trident, but I say we should scrap it. That is also the view of the leader of the party.”
One to watch.
The next big Labour row: Terrific scoop this morning from the Yorkshire Post’s Arj Singh, who reveals a plan is being hatched by Jeremy Corbyn’s Shadow Peace Minister Fabian Hamilton to shift the party’s position on Trident.
Labour’s current policy — heavily guided by trade unions like Unite — is to back the renewal of Trident even though Corbyn himself is a veteran anti-nukes campaigner. But Singh reveals Hamilton is working on a “defense diversification strategy” in which high-skilled defense workers would be retrained for industries like health technology.
Asked if that could pave the way for unions to change position and support the scrapping of Trident, Hamilton says: “I sincerely hope so. I have always said party policy says we should renew Trident, but I say we should scrap it. That is also the view of the leader of the party.”
One to watch.
'“defense diversification strategy” in which high-skilled defense workers would be retrained for industries like health technology.'
What if they don't want to be? Or indeed have no transferable skills, shipbuilding and surgery having relatively little in common.
What if they don't want to be? Or indeed have no transferable skills, shipbuilding and surgery having relatively little in common.
Do you really think the individual will have any choice in Corbyn's Marxist dystopia? It will be like his beloved East Germany - a land where people liked Marxism so much they had to shoot them to stop them leaving.
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 26th Sep 2018 at 21:46.
We no longer can afford an SSBN based nuclear deterrent. The error was made many years ago when we became reliant on US missile and targeting technology. A pan European approach with France would have been the better option. Corbyn is a realist. The UK will shortly lose many friends as BREXIT will have impacts far beyond the EU, Trumps America first policy means the "special relationship" is dead. Trump will go the way which serves the US best. And who can blame him for that.
We need to spend the cash on increased conventional forces instead. A blue water navy of Frigates and Destroyers. SSNs equipped with cruise missiles. why not a nuclear tipped Tomahawk or similar. Not a global reach weapon but flexible and threat multiplied.by the number of platforms.
We need to spend the cash on increased conventional forces instead. A blue water navy of Frigates and Destroyers. SSNs equipped with cruise missiles. why not a nuclear tipped Tomahawk or similar. Not a global reach weapon but flexible and threat multiplied.by the number of platforms.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
You claim, and object, to the UK being tied to US missile and targeting technology - then suggest we adopt the use of a SLCM-N as a deterrent? Extremely muddled thinking I feel.
The current Tomahawk missiles are conventional only, and the components including the engine are cheaper versions than those previously used up nuclear versions. Adoption would need the design if a completely new version meeting all the nuclear safety criteria - outside the knowledge base of UK designers. The USN is investigating the design of a new nuclear SLCM, but that is many years away - and in any case either choice would also depend on US missile and targeting technology.
The current Tomahawk missiles are conventional only, and the components including the engine are cheaper versions than those previously used up nuclear versions. Adoption would need the design if a completely new version meeting all the nuclear safety criteria - outside the knowledge base of UK designers. The USN is investigating the design of a new nuclear SLCM, but that is many years away - and in any case either choice would also depend on US missile and targeting technology.
According to the Times the Defence Committee has said the RN was working with only 2 active SSBN's for the last year - the other two are in deep maintenance. The two active boats have been working shift on & shift off......
One is in a 3 yr +++ refurb which is 9 months over already.
