Less numbers on a sub mean less casualties when it is hit. The slope on the issue is smaller crews and I think that this is the way to go – just a case of picking up the pace.

My thoughts on the next generation of subs is some sort of escape capsule / multiple secure sections in the pressure hull, automated magazine and full remote operation of the powertrain.

Not sure how far along the road the Astute is but the next generation needs to be an improvement.

However this should not come at the price of another round of “MOD / Military Inflation”, it is very interesting to see the price of subs rocket from one generation to the next. Just where is the money going to justify the huge increases?

One point that does intrigue me is your talk of onboard maintenance – just what do they get up to?
I was thinking that more modern systems and more digital systems would decrease the need for the crew to do maintenance.

So interested to hear what goes on during these long patrols?

Now onto the T45, just where is the automation you make mention of?
VLS instead of a complex magazine is one area but that should save money not cost money.
So where did all the new tech go and how many bodies were saved?

I knew when I posted that I made a slip up because I conflated the two issues unintentionally by typing to quick for my brain and then clicking “add comment” without reading.

Yes I am aware the issue is either to build son of Tridient/Ohio/Vanguard or stretch SSN with a missile compartment. I think my ramblings further up confirm that I know that.

So to reiterate. Unless their radical changes in the laws of nature to launch a Trident sized missile we will need a Vanguard / Ohio sized hull; a hull strong enough to endure the extremes of the ocean. Instead of reinventing the wheel the savings will come from dusting off the Ohio/Vanguard/Trident plans and repeating their build. If there are improvements that can be incorporated then do so. But starting from scratch is where these projects start to accrue costs. Unless the SSBN replacement is built out of composites, is saucer shaped, crewed by 5, and driven by a fusion reactor we will probably end up with a tube constructed out of a high grade steel, that displaces enough water to carry say 16 large missiles, a reactor, and a 100 or so humans. Sea water is still water. Pressure is still pressure. It will still submerge and surface through pumping air and water. In some ways the submarine’s size is the only variable because function (and nature) dictate form.

Short fat missiles? I am sure there are aerodynamic reasons why Trident turned out in the form it did. If you wanted to save costs with a new missile you would still go long and thin with a lighter warhead load. The trouble is though it isn’t just a question of warheads but decoys too.

Seeing as the USN managed to cock up LCS and Zumwalt I see know reason why they shouldn’t go three for three and cock up their next gen boomer too.

That’s not the choice though. It’s either a “cheap” stretch the Virginia and develop a new C4-like missile, or stick with D5 and develop a new submarine around it. That’s a very hot debate at the moment – the USN want a new submarine, but that could cost $3bn/ boat more than the Virginia Insert. Multiply by 12 and you can see why there are influential voices who reckon that it would be cheaper to design a new missile rather than a new sub. From memory the D5 cost about $15bn in modern money; but that was when the US had a lot more practice/infrastructure for building new ICBMs.

And if they do decide to go the C4 route, I can’t see the UK doing their own thing, no matter how much money we’ve put into the CMC….

@FBOT
I agree with your underlying premise, that employing people is something to be avoided where possible. But you can’t make an automatic assumption that less is better – you have to do the tradeoffs between pension costs and up-front capex. And it’s no good having fewer people in the boat if you have to do more maintenance at Faslane, reducing availability of your multi-£bn asset. That automation costs – it was a big reason for the upfront costs of T45.

I agree whole heartedly with your statement:

“…blurred lines between trade, privateering and piracy…”.

I guess then the MoD need to do the same? In fact, what actually happens to the drugs we sieze as we pirate the pirates?

Obviously I’m not trying to insite war/violence, I’m just trying to think of an angle that makes defence slightly more profitable

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/spending_chart_1985_2015UKp_11s1li111mcn_F0t

An advanced western economy, facing relative technological and demographic decline, should not be spending more than 40% of GDP lest it do serious damage to the long-term growth rate that will preserve the standard of living we enjoy for our children too:

http://ime.bg/uploads/OptimalSizeOfGovernment.pdf

So to a degree we are going to have to get used to the idea of government doing less for us because having a public debt equivalent to 400% of GDP by 2040, and using 15% of GDP each year to service debt interest, is clearly not a happy future:

http://www.bis.org/publ/work300.pdf

In conclusion; yes! given me a simpler, more effective, and more efficient tax system that takes less money from the economy and encourages long term growth.

gordon’s crime was as much arrogance as it was venal political bribery.

please don’t tell me you still hold a candle for gordon vainglorious notion that he had seen off the economic cycle with his ‘masterful’ macroeconomic governance?

you cannot buck the markets!

“Regarding public spending, there was no massive increase across the 11 years in question”

1998 UK spending = around £320 billion,
2007 Uk spending = around £544 billion,

No massive increase?

“…. overstocked on Gold and it was just sitting about wasting space and collecting dust not any form of income.”

Right there tells me that you don’t understand the purpose of Gold reserves.

No offence mate but that combined with your strong leanings towards New Labour/Brown suggests to me that to try and engage you in a debate on this matter would be pointless. You’ve put your flag in the ground and that’s that, so it would just be a waste of time.

I think you are getting all your info from Torygraph / Forgers Gazette editorials where facts are in very short supply.

The gold was sold to bulk up on interest delivering currencies. We were overstocked on Gold and it was just sitting about wasting space and collecting dust not any form of income.

The sale itself appears to have been badly handled but as in all these points you forget the context, there was a wave of Gold selling from national reserves at the time, he did not act alone.

Regarding public spending, there was no massive increase across the 11 years in question and all he was doing was repairing the public realm after Ma**ie and Sha**er pi**ed the bounty that was North Sea Oil up against a wall spending the once in a lifetime windfall on unemployment benefits, shoulder pads and stone cladding.

Again on the capital reserve requirements for banks, do you have any detail and how did his actions compare with the actions of others?

Looting, extortion, ransome and semi-offical mercenary roles. The administration of these autonomous military formations was entirely based on the ‘offical’ military practices they had learned serving English King Edward III.

“Caesar only ever went to war if there was a profit of 400% in it.”

“Caesar only ever went to war if there was a profit of 400% in it.”

It all went badly wrong in Spain & Russia. In both cases he was eventually presented with scorched earth: both the food and the portable wealth were deliberately desroyed to stop his armies could seize them.

At the end of the day ‘total war’ cannot be ‘commercial war’.

“Caesar only ever went to war if there was a profit of 400% in it.”

Generally speaking… no.

Government reserves is about preserving the value of your currency. You invest in Gold because it is inflation resistant. As Inflation goes up, so does the value of the Gold. Selling Gold at low prices completely defeats the point of having it.

I don’t mind, as long the exchange rate is >1:1 Purchasing Parity.

There’s control, and there’s “control!!”

Look what happened to the Mongols after they conquered China.

You will know how that feels when the Yuan replaces the Singapore Dollar after WW3……

Don’t think the sale of gold was much of a feel good decision. The money was needed, so the reserves had to be released. It was probably a “this sucks, but had to be done” decision. Would you classify this current economic problem as a “crisis”? If so, then isn’t this the time when “reserves” are meant to be used? By their very nature, reserves unfortunately are always sold below best profit.

“Show me one state that got founded with equity capital like a business and I will continue to debate your laughable analogy.”

Technically speaking the majority of modern states were built out of previous equity holdings, with Kings expanding their holdings, renting the properties out, selling them on, etc. Modern governments were built on the sale of old equity.

@ FBOT

I have a feeling you vote Labour? Gordon Brown perhaps can’t be blamed for causing the crisis, it was really an American problem that infected the rest of the world, but he and his crew made it much worse.

Loosening of the capital reserve holding for British Banks made it worse (and ironically the Conservatives are now styming growth by introducing the needed requirements far too late when we really need growth).

Selling of the Gold reserves was also a brilliantly stupid move.

Further, the massive growth in government spending, especially the departments that had little front line impact, really put us in a bad spot in terms of government finances. Times of high revenue are the times to be getting your house in order and setting yourself up for hard times later.

What I wanted to get to is a nice nugget I’ve never managed to verify, and that’s this (and it’s fairly topical)…

Caesar only ever went to war if there was a profit of 400% in it.

…perhaps this is common knowledge in these defence circles?

With regard the capital reserve ratios, I guess that Gordon made his changes (I think most notably to investment banking) to be competitive with the rest of the world – primarily the USA.

If someone put their hand in the fire Mr Brown was sure to follow suit.

Great bloke.

Same chap that sold our gold at an all time low.

Perhaps he knew something we didn’t?

They’re all as bad as each other, it’s just G.B. single-handedly nearly crippled our children’s futures – amazing achievement since no-one ever voted for him.

I did
Swapped my investments to Emerging Economies (India/China) just before the crash. And stayed there. Sure, profits to be found in the Eurozone fluctuations, but serious risks too, too unpredictable. See the Dutch parliment yesterday as an example. I forsee government change in Italy and Portugal soon too.

Recommendation?
America. They took a gutshot, but it seems like they finally hit rock bottom and while they’ll coast there for a while, it seems more likely to improve over time. China? They’re starting to get labour/union problems.

SO, the point of failure was the collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I specifically told my family and friends that if the US didn’t nationalise those banks within 3 days, the system goes down. Most of the system was propped up using investor confidence, hit that, and everything goes.

“What point are you trying to make?
Too many asterixs and not enough analysis.”

This one brings to mind the saying about the pot.

Aren’t they going to be in use concurrently, so surely “the inners” will have commonality, even though how each will be packaged together (and fit into any hull dimensions/ shape) will be different?
- asking; don’t know the answer

Hi, I think you’ve mixed up the CMC (Common Missile Compartment) and the VPM (Virginia Payload Module). The CMC will have to accomodate the D5, because that’s what we’ll be using when it arrives. And the UK has paid a fair wedge into the development of the CMC, ensuring that we’ll get what we want.