With news filtering out that the Treasury wants any Trident replacement to be funded from the MoD’s core budget instead of a special reserve, I thought having another look at a cheaper way of doing this is timely.
This news is a rumour, it may or may not happen and even if it does, who knows what will be included in any ruling from the Treasury or not.
The final impact is therefore unknown.
In the previous post on building a cheaper deterrent I think we came to the conclusion that a land or air based solution was impractical and a sea launched nuclear cruise missile solution would have too many compromises to make it worth the expense. If you are going to stay in the nuclear club you should make sure that however you do it, your solution retains credibility.
So getting back to the issue;
How could we shave costs off or is there room for something innovative to really slash the bill?
Contents
Option 1 – Reduce Capability
The most obvious way of cutting costs is to reduce capability; 3 boats instead of 4, fewer missiles and fewer warheads.
These will reduce costs but still leave us with a credible deterrent.
Advances in nuclear engineering have reduced the need for maintenance and reactor refuelling, automation means crew size can be reduced and fewer missiles and warheads means less maintenance and storage costs.
3 boats instead of 4, based on Vanguard technology, would leave the objective of a 100% at sea objective under some risk. 3 boats instead of 4 using Astute technology is less of a risk but still pushes us towards the probability of at some point in the future having a gap in cover.
We might weigh that risk and decide to accept it, balancing it against a reduced cost.
Option 2 – Push the Decision Out to the Future
Although not actually saving any money, it would probably cost more in the long term, it may be possible to life extend the Vanguard class. This of course means that at any one time we will be operating with 3 boats not 4 as one goes into Barrow for the work so same comments as above about risk. There is also the political risk, if we can manage with three Vanguards in any upgrade programme, why upgrade the final boat?
I haven’t got a clue if this is feasible from an engineering perspective but it is worth a very serious look because it gets us through a financially difficult period and allows any subsequent decision to made without the financial aspect having an undue influence.
There is some confusion and indecision around the missile compartment dimensions for the US Trident replacement and given the timing issues between the UK and US programmes, there is a danger we may be left with a submarine design and/or actual submarines in the water that have Trident sized missile compartments when the US Trident replacement programme is larger. This situation would be a massive cost sink as our almost new Vanguard replacements would have to go into the boatyard for extensive refurbishment, given that it is looking likely that a 3 boat solution is chosen over 4, we would have to maintain an at sea presence with 2 boats i.e. not possible. Pushing the decision out to the future allows ‘Common Missile Compartment’ issue to be unhurriedly resolved.
By squeezing a little more life from the Vanguard class we might be able to get to the point where a replacement programme could coincide with either the French or US SSBN replacement which brings us on to Option 3.
Option 3 – Buy Off the Shelf or Collaborate
Buying a submarine off the shelf from France or the US is an option worth considering. The US option comes attached with an unfortunate timing problem, their Ohio class SSBN are not due for replacement for some time after the Vanguards go out of service (see Option 2)
We would still have the same degree of sovereign control but costs would be driven down for both nations by sharing R&D and production across a larger number of boats.
If we partnered with the French we would have to replace all the Trident infrastructure with something to support the French missile and warhead, unless we tried to mate the Trident with a French SSBN.
This would open all sorts of other political possibilities, a shared EU deterrent perhaps?
The downside to this would be the destruction of sovereign nuclear submarine building in the UK.
Option 4 – SSGN
This is an interesting option because it goes back to first principles and is effects driven, not platform driven, as options 1 to 3 are.
In comments in the previous post, Jackstaff, Dominic and Jed discussed the idea of using the deterrent to add flexibility to other forces.
One of the arguments in favour of a dedicated class of boats that don’t mix missions with others is the weapon release procedures are obviously stringent and need a dedicated training stream. Another is that in order to avoid detection they have to patrol in remote parts of the deep ocean, well clear of an land based anti submarine weapons, if we were to share conventional missiles with nuclear then to use the former the boat would need to come closer inshore, this of course depends on the range of the conventional weapons and distance to target.
The proposal was to cease production of Astute at 4 or 5 boats and create a Batch 2 design that had a vertical launch section plugged in amidships, 6 or 8 boats.
These could be fitted with the US ‘flex tubes’ and Trident rotated with conventional weapons, a single boat taking on the role of at sea deterrent on a rotational basis. Drawing from a larger pool of common vessels means availability management becomes easier, you don’t need that extra fourth dedicated boat. In times of heightened tension the weapon load could be flexed up or if things were really getting hairy, all our missiles could be dispersed across the entire SSGN fleet, diversity in location increases resilience and this resilience means the likelihood of a successful strike against our deterrent decreases dramatically. This may even reduce tension.
The idea certainly satisfies my obsession with ‘ruthless commonality’ to relentlessly drive costs down.
The US Navy has had some considerable success in modifying older SSBN’s by fitting multi tube Tomahawk launch cells, special forces accommodation and swimmer delivery vehicles. As part of a conventional deterrent it certainly has impact.
The difference between us the the USN is that we would be starting from scratch, we don’t have any surplus SSBN’s. The Astute, however, is a modular design and the experience gained from the tortuous design and build programme means that design and build expertise will never be higher than it is now.
Can we innovate to reduce cost and increase flexibility, yes, I think we can.
I might even venture into New Wars territory and say that a suitably equipped SSGN might replace some of the missions planned for CVF.
Instead of going for a tube based design I would look at the US Virgina Class Batch 3/Block II design, it proposes to use large modular bays instead of hull piercing tubes. These bays can be fitted with missile launch tubes for Trident, Tomahawk or, in the future, other missile designs. Other bays on the drawing board include special forces accommodation, dispersed sensor arrays, submarine launched UAV’s and UUV’s. The possibilities are many. Much like my suggestion on an Offshore Platform Supply Vessel derived lower tier warship, having lots of space provides lots of interesting possibilities. We might not use the space immediately but if there is one thing we all know, capabilities will fit available space, we will always find a use for them.
This modular approach also means that we can put off fretting about whether the US Trident missile replacement will be 2.21m in diameter (as now) or 3.04m as potentially it might be. We can design the Trident payload module at the last minute and if things change in the future it is simply a case of swapping out one module for another. The US water piercing missile launcher (WPML) also provides an interesting glimpse into the possibilities for future weapons.
The ability to launch a huge number of Tomahawks or anti ship missiles has considerable deterrent value in its own right. Carrying up to 60 special forces personnel with their equipment, mini subs, a range of UUV’s and even a tube launched UAV would be enormously valuable and an effective counter to increasing anti access capabilities.
RUSI published an interesting paper on the subject, have a read here
This raises an interesting point about the use of nuclear weapons, do we, as now, treat them as something completely distinct, not to be mixed with anything else?
We certainly bought them into play in the liberation of Kuwait, Saddam was told in no uncertain terms that should he deploy chemical or biological weapons there would be a nuclear response, aimed directly at him.
When on Trident duty the SSGN could have a specific crew and still patrol in the same manner as Vanguard but with most of the tubes empty, we could keep other nations guessing as to what the exact missile/warhead loadout is.
There is a certain purity in the Vanguard/Trident model, it only does one thing, a very important thing, for this it needs to be a specialist with specialist crew.
Perhaps though, facing financial difficulty and the very scary costs being mooted for a Vanguard replacement, we might compromise on our thinking and consider this as a sensible and pragmatic alternative that delivers a relevant deterrent for the UK
My proposal:
Build 50 warheads – 10 nuclear and 40 thermonuclear ones. All proven designs that need not be tested (even if that means to use 50′s technology!).
Make these warheads options for Storm Shadow, Harpoons, off-the shelf LORA or ATACMS missiles and other means of employment.
Produce another 200 dummy warheads that are externally identical (so even their handlers cannot tell the difference).
Store the warheads and dummies in many different safes on different bases as well as on warships and in deep subsurface storage sites.
This should suffice to create the core of nuclear deterrence – the technical ability for a nuclear response.
It cannot be prohibitively expensive to produce dummies and some old off-the shelf design warheads. It doesn’t take much to integrate a new warhead into existing missiles with equivalent warhead volume and weight. No super-expensive nuclear submarines are needed.
You could still go back to SSBN-based deterrence (patrol in Arctic, Irish or Baltic Sea if Arabs shall be deterred, patrol in Med if Russians, Chinese or Americans shall be deterred) if the real need arises in the future.
If the deterrent is to be funded through the core defence budget then I would rather see the end of CASD, and a cheap tactical nuclear cruise missile added to larger platform of common SSN’s (batch one / batch two).
Option three is a no go for two reasons:
1. Buying off the shelf submarines will kill the UK nuclear submarine industry, which requires at an absolute minimum 11 boats created on a 22 month ‘drumbeat’ with an 25 year operational life. Unless we have a larger fleet of sovereign SSN’s to pick up the slack, but how is this cheaper?
2. Partnering with France on strategic weapon design would utterly destroy the Intelligence and Technology relationship between Aldermaston/DERA/GCHQ/MI6/MI5 with their US counterparts. This IS the special relationship, and it would quietly die in totality whilst public proclamations about how it would have no impact on anything other than nukes were plastered across the airwaves.
JBD, absolutely agree with you re the sharing with France
Sven, you cannot have a new warhead design that has not been tested in the same kind of environmental conditions as they are likely to encounter in use. The bit about handling dummy or live weapons seems rather mad of you don’t mind me saying. I know where you are coming at, create uncertainty in the minds of potential aggressors but this just seems way too risky
I don’t see the need for any tactical nuclear missile…but a modified batch 2 Astute with a hull plug aft of the sail with a modular bay that can be fitted out for SLBM or cruise missiles (non nukes) would seem to be the best solution. This boat would then replace Vangaurds and eventually Astute itself.
Just a wacky idea here, but if we were to create a common submarine platform with VLS tubes and a common missile, presumably we would want extra warhead types in addition to nuclear MIRV’s in various numbers.
What does a fully populated trident warhead weigh (sensitive question i realise)?
If its “a lot”, would not a ballistic missile be a good place to stick a warhead populated by long-rod penetrators?
Speaking out my arse here but lets say a trident warhead weighs a tonne, how about using that payload weight for a hundred 10kg tungsten carbide rods?
No idea what the maths says, but the rentry speed plus the mass x100 ought to create a sizable “bang”…..
“This should suffice to create the core of nuclear deterrence – the technical ability for a nuclear response.”
But a nuclear tipped harpoon missile on a T45 just cant reliably hit most of the world, neither can a storm shadow launched from a Typhoon.
They’re too easy to knock out in a short war.
If your going nuclear, our military airfields are priority targets and easily whackable
Rest.
I’ve suggested a single sub class before, but theres not a huge amount of give in the Vanguard.
We need more than 100 MIRVS to breach Moscows ABM sield.
So it would lead to HUGE Hunter Killers.
Unless we give up hitting moscow settle for 8 tridents and 64 warheads, which realisticly, could still end any country on the planet as a functional entity.
I assume we could also save some room if we dumped torpedo tubes and shot everything from the VLS tubes.
We could also fit 56 tomahawks in it as well.
2 subs could easily overwhelm and annihilate even the biggest flotillas, and a second tier fleet would be best scuttling itself, because we could get them in port just as easily.
Jedi
It was my understanding that we’re considering common missile tubes, not common missiles.
An SSGN could throw 70 cruise missiles at the Russian fleet in Archangel with little need to worry.
But if it threw 7 ballistic missiles, the Russians wouldnt be waiting for mushroom clouds to return with nuclear strikes on London.
But your right, a ballistic missile would have a longer range and better payload than individual cruise missiles
We don’t need to develop a common missile tube but just build a submarine with “common’ space to accommodate either vls for SLBM or vls for cruise missiles. Then we retain separate SSBN and SSN (albeit slightly larger size).
Dominic and Jasons,
I hear people singing the SSGN song, particularly D’s neat summary of SSGNs as fleet killers. (Wrt a doctrinal niggle between him and me, I’d say carriers by comparison are now really floating airbases/command centers rather than their old tactical role as battleship-replacements. That’s falling towards proper SSGNs now.)
And it makes sense to me: the 8 x 8 solution (missiles and live MIRVs) on a boat to modified design (stretch Astute or chop down Vanguard, don’t build from scratch for billions of quid divided by four boats.) One devastates any emergent nuclear power, plus a second boat loaded to same specs for backup in a larger conflict. Build a largish class, maybe as many as eight, nominate three at a time to rotate in the deterrent role. (That I took as a refinement from Jed for reasons in the next sentence.) Then potential foes don’t assume every SSGN is a nuke boat and overreact accordingly. But they’d also know in a major crisis RN could cheat and “penny package” individual missiles among the boats making it nearly impossible to pre-emptively destroy Britain’s deterrent entirely. You could halve the number of D5s and trim warheads as well.
“It was my understanding that we’re considering common missile tubes, not common missiles.”
There must be a common missile, for surely the intention is to ‘rent’ a load of common missiles just as we do now, and we certainly aren’t going to develop our own missile.
“But if it threw 7 ballistic missiles, the Russians wouldnt be waiting for mushroom clouds to return with nuclear strikes on London.”
Wasn’t really considering the Russians to be honest, they’re a dead duck, and I’d be amazed if they weren’t a part of NATO themselves by 2050 once the last of the old soviets with delusions of past grandeur have popped their clogs.
“I’d say carriers by comparison are now really floating airbases/command centers rather than their old tactical role as battleship-replacements”
Yeah I suppoose so.
Jedi
Sorry I think I misunderstood, we would share a common ballistic issile with the US, and probably a common tactical missile (although we could develop storm shadow), but we would have two different missiles.
“Wasn’t really considering the Russians to be honest, they’re a dead duck, and I’d be amazed if they weren’t a part of NATO themselves by 2050 once the last of the old soviets with delusions of past grandeur have popped their clogs.”
Dont know, Russia never really been involved in Europe, but it will be a dead duck, someone, possibly you, was tellingt me it would have a lower population than Germany in 2030.
But they’re a convenient target for now, people look at me oddly when I say we’ll be at war with the South American Union by 2030
the smaller than germany figure dated from 2007 UN projections, but even with improved numbers since last year russia’s population by 2050 will still be about the same as germany’s.
in the same vein, by 2050 there economy will still be 10% smaller than france or germany, and 20% smaller than Britain’s despite russia having a population 20% larger.
it’s not now that reality will settle in, but in 20 years time when the russians need to create there next generation of ballistic missiles and simply won’t be able to afford to develop them, let alone deploy them anywhere near their START treaty limitations. the US is laughing; “yes, by all means you can have 1500 warheads, fill your boots!”
that is why i think that by 2030 russia will be a nato/eu member, it will be forty years after the end of the cold war and most of the dinosaurs will have died.
Dominic,
Re: carriers, I appreciate the vote of confidence in my pedantry but feel free to shoot me down too, truly. It’s an argument worth having.
JBT (but also that current line of debate),
Russia is due a demographic crash, but for three hundred years the opportunity for a steamroller of messianic mischief has always been there with Russia in good times and bad. And for a time yet they will have a classic kind of dysfunctional political economy being so resource/extraction-driven (between the mafia and the legacy military, a touch of Saudi Arabia with nukes), open for delightful combinations of boom-bust, political grandstanding, cronyism and rash gestures to satisfy aggrieved interest groups. Like JBT I wouldn’t bet on a South American Union (too many old grievances that are really just warming up again thanks to the prospect of prosperity and its uneven division around the continent. You think Franco-Germany/PIIGS friction is fun, try Columbia-v-Venezuela or Brazil-v-Andes.) But which way Britain’s relationship falls with an ever-expansive and (surely) soon nuclear Brazil is a major plot point for British diplomacy over the next half-century.
@admin:
You seem to have ignored this:
“All proven designs that need not be tested (even if that means to use 50′s technology!).”
Nowhere did I propose a new warhead design.
And I don’t see how dummies could pose a risk. None of the handlers even need to be aware that there are dummies. The required handling would be the handling for real nukes. If anything, it’s risky to use only real warheads and no dummies.
@DominikJ:
Try a nuclear-tipped SUB-Harpoon (UGM-84) in a SUBMARINE.
Range is about 200 km, could be about 300 km. That’s certainly enough, even though you wouldn’t have most cities of Russia in range. They would not want to risk St. Petersburg and Murmansk, of course.
It’s also possible to launch a Typhoon from a 200 ft freighter. See ZEL technology:
http://www.vectorsite.net/avzel.html
If the Government and Treasury decide not to fund a nuclear deterrent as a separate entity then game over the defence budget simply could not accommodate the cost. The multitude of compromise in-between still cost money and I don’t believe the defence budget could carry the increased, albeit slightly lighter, burden. However I am pretty confident that what we will end up with will not be clear for at least another decade by which time the economy should have recovered and we will be in different circumstances. (Either that or we will no longer exist after being subsumed into the United States of Europe )
The option I would like to see and that I believe I have mentioned before is for a class of 6 flexible SSBN/SSGN’s. This should allow for 2 boats to be available on patrol at any one time one in the traditional deterrent role and the other armed flexibly but conventionally to support current objectives. In times of extreme tension the additional boat could be quickly rearmed to supplement and reinforce the primary CASD mission.
Anyhow great blog post and interesting ideas in the comments
“Range is about 200 km, could be about 300 km. That’s certainly enough, even though you wouldn’t have most cities of Russia in range. They would not want to risk St. Petersburg and Murmansk, of course.”
To get 300km from St Petersburg we’d have to go right past Konigsburg in the first place and would either have to enter the narrow neck between Estonia and Finland or sit just off the coast of one of those nations.
To hit the Northern cities isnt much easier.
Evading Russian submarines and surface shipping in the atlantic is easy. Our (and NATO) ASW forces pcik up submarines in the GIUK Gap and we track them for as long as we can, reporting their positions to our SSBN, which can use that information to evade.
By the time the russians have slipped the net, they’re running out of food and need to go home anyway.
In the Baltic or the Far North, we wouldnt have that advantage, we’d have no sonar net they have to pass, and our airpower would be at maximum range.
Even if the Russians arent sure about their ability to block the strike, any major war would likely see those cities suffer severe damage from conventional attacks anyway. Is the extra damage from going nuclear a deterant?
@DominikJ:
Please note that I wrote about a number of warheads for different modes of employment.
You want to hit China? Send a sub. You want to hit Russia? Send strike fighters.
No matter what, you do not need SSBNs.
SSBNs weren’t even necessary during the Cold War. The Soviets had no significant power or allies in the Mediterranean. Even missiles on container freighters would have been survivable there.
The German, Danish and Swedish navies could also tell you a lot about the survivability of SSKs in the Baltic Sea. There’s a reason why the Swedes are SSK operators.
Sven
“You want to hit Russia? Send strike fighters.”
From where?
If Russia has just used nuclear weapons on the UK, we dont have any airbases.
Sure we could launch from carriers, but for that we need nuclear weapon carrying carriers, and strike aircraft.
Even if we have a full carrier, thats only 36 planes, with range limited to maybe 1000km.
And these are demonstrably more expensive than SSBN’s anyway.
A single pilot and plane costs £20m a year to maintain, £700m for a carrier full. You’ve got a carrier and escorts to operate on top of that, several sets of each really.
3 Carriers, 3 Airwings, 12 escorts?
A Carrier Battle Group is also highly visible and could itself be hit with a nuclear weapon.
We’d get maybe a 10 minute warning, if we’re deluding ourselves. Is that enough time to get 36 fighters readied, launched and out of the blast radious of a wide pattern spread of a dozen nuclear weapons?
Could Russia put a block in place to prevent the strike group breaking through?
On Paper they have 1200 aircraft.
Even if 24 cover fighters and 12 nuclear, not all of them are going to get through.
If only half do, thats six nuclear weapons.
Even at key targets, thats not that worrying, its sure as hell not mutualy assured destruction.
An SSBN will deliver 100 nuclear warheads wherever it wants. It cannot be destroyed in advance, its weapons cannot be intercepted en route and it cannot be kept out of range of your heartlands.
The Soviets have a fleet in the Black Sea, its not beyond possibility for them to put a few ships into the med and blow up a few container ships.
SSKs can be operated in the baltic sea. Its varying layers of salinity and current direction make finding a submarine there a nightmare.
But they dont make it impossible, and they sure as hell arent safer than in the deep atlantic
SSBN’s in the deep atlantic CANNOT be hunted down and destroyed, anything else can.
What would you suggest the UK should do if Russia suddenly started following our deterant freighters, carriers and submarines?
And then if it started blowing them up?
The only options are be disarmed and then subjugated or to go nuclear first.
“sea launched nuclear cruise missile solution would have too many compromises to make it worth the expense”. Who says? What compromises? What expense? In my opinion sea-launched nuclear cruise missiles are the only sensible option we have. Instead of 8 SSNs and 4 SSBNs we should have 12 (or even 10) SSNs equipped with torpedoes, conventional and/or nuclear cruise missiles. The advantages are that this is (a) a much more secure deterrent, impossible to neutralize in a first strike and (b) infinitely flexible.
SSBNs face various threats, none of which alone might be a show stopper, but all taken together should give us reason to think twice. Satellites that can track submarines, SSKs with AIP lurking outside the submarine base, SRBMs with smart warheads that can destroy high-value targets (eg SSBNs in harbour), SAMs that can knock down ICBMs.
A force of 12 SSNs might see 8 or 9 in commission at a time, 3 or 4 at sea at a time, more in an emergency. Each submarine carries 38 weapons (unless we develop a Block 2 Astute with VLS when it will be greater). Each submarine can carry any number of nuclear cruise missiles from zero to maybe 20? We could put a hundred nukes to sea (can’t think of any reason why we should want to but that’s another matter) or if the international situation improves, none at all (equally improbable in my opinion).
New generations of improved cruise missiles could progressively replace older types (stealthy, supersonic etc). It is a perfectly reasonable proposition that we could develop our own indigenous designs and thereby have a truly independent deterrent. And we have a bigger fleet of SSNs than we would otherwise. From a potential enemy’s point of view, who is going to risk being on the receiving end of a volley of nuclear cruise missiles? We don’t need to be able to flatten Moscow, just to be able to inflict more damage on an enemy than their aggression would be worth.
Steve
I’m not sure how you can argue ballistic missiles can be shot down, and then argue for cruise missiles, which really can be shot down.
None ballistic missiles simply lack the range to be a significant threat.
That said, I agree with you that a single class would be much better, it would simply need to be a single class capable of deploying MIRV’ed ballistic missiles, as well as topedoes, sub sonic and supersonic missiles.
Interesting Idea with the Nuke Harpoon. I think Israel has already developed one for use by its SSK’s
DominicJ: I would not argue that Cruise missiles can be shot down (even stealthy supersonic ones). That does not prevent them being a good enough deterrent. Can any enemy be confident about shooting them all down? Of course not, that is the point. Ballistic missiles can be shot down as well, either that or the USN has been exaggerating about SM-3 and the Russians exaggerating about S-400 & S-500. Maybe Trident is a more difficult proposition but SAM technology does not stand still, what is difficult today may be less so tomorrow. Whatever your reservations about a cruise-missile based deterrent, I suspect it’s the best we can afford, and pushing on with Trident will have dire consequences for our conventional forces.
Martin: From what I have read, the Israeli Navy deploy a nuclear-armed cruise missile called ‘Popeye’ on its SSKs. It does not look like a Harpoon derivative though, it looks bigger.
Has anybody considered a swap? The US has in storage over 400 nuclear Tomahawk with adjustable yield and a 1500 mile range (longer than coventional because of lighter warhead.) The service life extension program was underway for them, but cancelled after the research and development phase ie. there is already a spec and method for extending them (see Global Security WMD site under W-80 warhead and Tomahawk systems entry.) The UK has the rights to approximately 56 Trident missile bodies and a little under 200 warheads compatible with those missile bodies. The missile bodies are commonly maintained with the US…..the warheads are completely UK controled…..could the UK swap the nuclear material and right to the missile bodies for Tomahawks to equip later versions of the Astute…..? My understanding is that the US still needs missile bodies to carry out Trident test programs over time and the nuclear material must have some worth? An additional 6 SLGN with 12 vertical launch each tubes up front would give a credible nuclear deterrent, as well as a minimum modification version of Astute and real multifunction power projection. Another advantage is that if there was further disarmament the tubes could be easily rerolled to conventional weapons. Just an idea for discussion.
While it’s a little less than I plugged for in the original thread, it seems there’s probably a straightforward way to square Dominic and Steve’s circles, and deliver something that could easily be accounted in the budget for massively less development lolly. (Which, because it will deprive key civil servants of years of grace-and-favour makework and BAe of enormous resources from the public fisc to build an even bigger corporation, is why it won’t happen
By the numbers:
- There are, as I understand it, well-developed draughtsman’s designs of a modified Astute, possibly a little longer, with a higher bridge line behind the conning tower to accomodate four ballistic missile-like tubes in a single line.
- As a measure based on I’m not sure what, the number of live warheads MIRVed aboard the RN’s Trident missiles is limited in sympathy with a treaty the United Kingdom never actually signed. Now, this duplicates to some degree putting a few missiles on a lot of boats — it puts a few warheads on a lot of missiles. But if future nuclear deterrence is based on 1) contributing to a larger, allied deterrent capability against a superpower opponent (a lingering Russian target, perhaps China, or in some nightmarish dystopian otherworld an overgrown brazil or fundamentalism-addled US?) or 2) a one-on-one exchange with an emergent nuclear state, then their ballistic missile defence capabilities are not likely cutting-edge and targets are, geographically, more concentrated. (Ex. though Iran is a vast country, you could span it between Moscow and St. Petersburg, or less.)
- Slow the long-lead development on currently named HMS Agammemnon a bit. Redesign for the missile-silo, lose the dry deck shelter (these are SSGNs, not utility fleet SSNs.) What do you get then? An Astute-based boat with a magazine for its TTs that holds around 36-40 (range on various sources) torps and Tomahawks. It also has four “flex tubes” which can carry Trident, or launch cells for nine Tomahawks per tube, and possibly a new-build VLS for anti-ship missiles.
- Then you can carry four Tridents with ten live warheads apiece (only eight fewer warheads than an on-duty Vanguard, on a quarter of the missiles.) Or, you can have about 52 Tomahawks aboard (flex tubes and TTs) plus torps, or a mix of anti-ship missiles in the flex tubes plus Tomahawk and torps through the front tubes. World-league SSGNs.
- Take this new class and build eight (Britannia class? Alphabetical and lots of good battleship names.) Three nominated in rotation for the deterrent role, three more as conventional SSGNs (with a roulement on APT(S) plus wherever needed) and a pair in refit/reserve. Important to clarify that certain boats are nuke boats — and probably you’d have two sets of crews, nuclear and conventional, who rotated boats — so that no one overreacts to an SSGN popping up near their fleet and launching cruise. One could, maybe, get some nuclear-warheaded Tomahawks on the nuke boats under certain conditions, an extension of the old “launch on warning” logic and a backup for the smaller number of SLBMs. But it’s a dicey subject because you need your enemies, frankly, to assume that you follow certain clear rules so they know not every Tomahawk over their bow is some prime ministerial madman/woman’s nuke.
You get eight modded Astutes at something close to Astute cost (and the show of “including the deterrent in the defence budget”), drop the number of D5s radically (say 16-18 missiles, for a max of four tubes by four boats with a couple of spares, rather than the current 16 x 3 plus spares.) Trim warheads a little. Problems solved? In Westminster are they bollocks.
Steve
We arent moving forward with Trident, we’re moving forward with a ballistic missile to deliver nuclear warheads, but Trident isnt our plan for the next 50 years.
One of the problems is that the repalcement has yet to be designed, but we really need to get to work on our submarine to carry them, which is why we’ve been discussing modular submarines capable of having missile bays swapped.
Theres simply a world of difference between a Trident missile, and a SCUD.
Shooting down incoming nuclear weapons has been tried before.
MIRV’s currently mean that that attacker always wins, a single ballistic missile drops 8 warheads, all of which need a ballistic missile with which to be shot down.
If Russia wants to build a defence, it’ll cost them 5x what we need to spend on offence, and thats a war we can afford to win easily.
“Whatever your reservations about a cruise-missile based deterrent, I suspect it’s the best we can afford, and pushing on with Trident will have dire consequences for our conventional forces. ”
No defence is better than a false defence.
We arent Israel, if Israels weapons program exists, it exists to destroy an incoming conventional attack or punish a conventional genocide launched against them by the arabs.
As for consequences, either the government wants it and funds it, or doesnt and doesnt.
Jackstaff
It would put Moscow out of reach (currently the missiles carry dummy warheads if they dont carry nuclear) to get us oiver the magic 100 number that Russia claims it can shoot down.
However as I’ve said before, a bomb or two on Russias 40/20 most important westerly targets would collapse it back to the 10th century, the bits its neighbours dont seize.
I’d prefer more than 4, but its within reason, certainly if we have a larger fleet so can have two or more nuclear armed.
As for future use.
Contributory Deterant isnt possible.
Russia Nukes Berlin
France Nukes Moscow
Russia Nukes Paris
What does France gain from that exchange?
Never going to happen.
Certainly, Russia didnt believe a Russian use of nuclear weapons against a none nuclear power would result in a nuclear attack on Russia.
A one on one exchange isnt likely either, because it leads to two for two.
I think realisticaly we’d have to hit back 5:1, but I suppose it would depend on the target.
Wayne – this is pretty much what I was thinking of (although I still think an indigenous missile would pay political dividends domestically, there is real disbelief among the public about how independent our deterrent is).
Jackstaff – I did not know there was a design for a modified Astute, sounds like the Soviet Hotel/Golf classes. Some have claimed the hull of Astute is big enough to accommodate Trident D5 but it never looked likely to me.
DominicJ – I did not understand all of your last contribution but I do agree contributory deterrence is unreal. I think, however, that the claims for SM-3 and S-400 go a long way beyond just shooting down Scuds.
The idea of an alternative deterrent was mooted a couple of decades ago when Polaris was being replaced. The idea attracted little support or attention then but it seems quite different this time round.
Steve
A Trident Missile costs $30.9m and carries 8 warheads
An SM3 costs $9.5m, but you need 1 per warhead, so it costs $76m to defend but only $30.9m to attack, assuming a 100% hit rate.
Which considering a trident warhead is moving at 6km a second, isnt that likely.
If Russia builds a system to shoot down 200 warheads, for the same cost, we can fire 400.
They dont all need to be nuclear, some can just be iron balls, the ruskies wont know whats whats, and its not like lumps of iron travelling at 6kms arent going to do damage.
Hope that helps
I’ve looked at some of these issues in detail here:
http://www.brad.ac.uk/acad/bdrc/nuclear/trident/change.html
God help us.
Nick
Saying, “the world is heading towards a nuclear free future” and then quoting the man who collapsed the soviet union saying he wants a nuclear free future, does not make it a fact that we are heading for a nuclear free future.
When Everyone else has cut their stockpiles of missiles, re-entry vehicles and warheads to below ours, we should match them, that would be a path to a nuclear free future.
Saying, the UK is not at risk of an out of the blue first strike and finding a doddering old general who agrees does not make it a fact.
On the morning of 11/09/01, there was absolutly no chance of 4 planes being hijacked by terrorists and crashed into the world trade centre towers, pentagon and white house.
Still happend.
You even acknowledge that there is an escalation risk by deploying a nuclear sub mid crisis, yet fail to explain how this is resolved.
There are two arguements that work for the UK.
CASD
Nuclear Disarmament
Anything else is a fudge that fails to provide deterance and actualy increases waste.
Your arguement is flawed.
You know it is flawed.
Yet you repeat it anyway.
Your forked tongue hath no sway here