As m’learned friend Jedibeeftrix eloquently states in his recent takeon Sir Nick Harvey’s comments on Trident, the ex defence minister has managed to get the Trident replacement issue back into the news agenda in an intelligent way, not framing it in terms of having it or not but instead talking up the Liberal Democrat Trident Alternative Review, or the department of cheaper deterrents as it is more commonly known.
Whether this is a genuine attempt at seeking greater value for money or a simple ruse to obtain disarmament by other means is to some degree irrelevant, a range of decisions on a replacement for both the Vanguard class SSBN and Trident missiles will be needed, some sooner than others.
The Successor SSBN and Trident missile are completely different programmes with different timing (fortunately or unfortunately depending on your perspective) but of course are inextricably linked.
All the usual industrial, timing, cost and technology issues are open for discussion but uniquely, the nuclear deterrent has a significant ethical, political, Scottish independence and party political elements also and this makes the job of picking through the various strands of argument that more difficult.
If one were to look at the nuclear deterrent rationally it would be completely obvious that the very notion is insane, wasteful of precious resource and should be consigned to the round filing cabinet as soon as possible.
The problem is though, and this is something that those seeking its withdrawal never seem to appreciate, it is entirely because it is irrational, insane and emotional that it makes absolutely perfect sense.
However, it is still worth exploring that difficult ‘why’ question
To state the obvious, we are not in the cold war and it is this charge that is often levelled at a Trident replacement, we are arguably more likely to face a nuclear attack tomorrow from a smuggled and deniable dirty bomb than a ballistic missile with an obvious track and origin. The type of country that might back such an attack is arguably unlikely to be deterred by Trident because they could just shrug and say ‘it wasn’t us’
Retaliation then becomes a difficult prospect, against whom?
In this scenario, our multi billion pound weapon system would stand mute and impotent.
The obvious counter to that argument is that whilst this might be true today, with the speed of technology proliferation can this be guaranteed for the next 30-50 years, I think not. One only has to look at the speed at which India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel have acquired warhead and delivery technology.
Emerging nuclear powers like Iran have also shown an ability to make deals and use their indigenous capabilities to progress at a rapid pace.
It would be an extraordinary gamble to throw away a capability that has taken so much effort to achieve and others are racing at full speed ahead to get. The Non Proliferation Treaty has proven to be spectacularly ineffective at stopping these nations and the technology is clearly transferable. So whilst it is highly unlikely that we will face a nuclear threat or attack from the current nuclear states can we predict with any certainty that either these threats will remain low or new ones will not emerge?
We might also be tempted to look at the issue through the prism of a Western democratic liberal prism, the world unfortunately is not altogether a rational place that shares our values. Whilst this does not mean those with differing values are hell bent on our nuclear destruction it illustrates that we should be careful about seeing things from one angle only.
The argument about the nuclear terrorist attack also assumes that this is the only possible future, yes Trident may be a relatively poor deterrent against a nuclear capable AQ but do we seriously think that is the only threat we face for the next 40 or 50 years?
It is this inability to see into the future, basic uncertainty about the threats to the UK that should be driving our thinking.
In addition, there are a range of benefits that accrue from being at the so called ‘top table’ and it is these that also have to be factored in.
One of the Think Defence gang came up recently with a great comment about the ‘top table’
People talk of us just wanting to keep a seat at the table like it was a sodding dinner party or something.
You tell me who has more influence, the blokes sat around the table in the board room or the blokes sat in the company canteen?
Nuclear weapons are not the only reason the United Kingdom has a place at that table but it is one of them.
It is fashionable to decry the United Kingdom’s Great Nation status, talk of being a small nation in a big continent, a declining wealth in comparison to emerging nations and a collective imperial guilt complex but this needs to simply stop.
Of course we have to be realistic, the nation’s influence and power are declining in some areas but we are not a ‘little people’ just yet and shouldn’t be talking about ways and means of making us thus even faster.
So, on the ‘should we shouldn’t we’ question I am still very much of the opinion that the UK should retain its nuclear weapons delivery capability.
Moving on from that ethically and politically charged question the final issue to address is the ‘how’
The reason the ‘how’ is in the news is because the UK is facing the need to renew the equipment used to deliver nuclear deterrent and quite simply, we are facing a significant financial crisis.
Can we deliver a credible nuclear deterrent cheaper than a simple like for like replacement of the current system?
This then raises the question about what exactly does deterrent mean, against whom, what would be the definition of credible and other interlinked questions.
A credible deterrent in its simplistic form means the other guy has to know that you have the means to hit back no matter what and the balls to do so.
If the UK was attacked (or any other typical trigger scenarios) I do not believe any Prime Minister would shy away from the decision to retaliate with nuclear weapons, history would judge him harshly.
To be credible that deterrent has to be capable of being used at short notice, have a devastating impact and immune from a first strike.
It is this issue that Sir Nick Harvey has raised, can we have a credible deterrent on the cheap.
As much as I am rather scornful of Liberal Democrat defence policies I think this is an entirely valid question to ask, even though some of the commentary around that question seems extreme.
The programme to replace Trident and the Vanguard submarines had been bumping along quite nicely but the comments by Nick Harvey at the recent Liberal Democrat Party Conference have thrown an interesting spin on the Successor SSBN programme and will I am sure, put the issue firmly on the front burner again.
In an articlein the Guardian (of course) he makes a number of remarks;
First he starts by saying that Trident and a continuous at sea SSBN was based on the policy of ‘flattening Moscow’ but Russia being a different country now might be deterred by having an ability to flatten just a teensy bit of Moscow.
The Russia of the 21st century – economically diverse, vaguely democratic, but definitely a very different sort of place from where it was in 1980 – might find all sorts of damage to be unacceptable short of flattening Moscow.
Therefore to convince ourselves that the only point of having any deterrent at all is the capability of flattening Moscow is the wrong and distorting lens through which to view the debate
When I read that I did wonder if my late night trip to the Stella fridge was having a greater effect than usual but having re-read it, I was right, he really is saying we must base the fundamental means of deterring nuclear powers from attacking the UK on what Russia finds an unacceptable loss right now, at this point in time.
How would we know what they find unacceptable, should we just ask them, would we believe the answer, who would we ask?
The whole premise is ludicrous.
The thing is, for many years the Successor SSBN and Trident replacement programme has actually been based on a reduced number of missiles and reduced number of warheads anyway, with the Successor SSBN designed to carry eight missiles instead of the Vanguard’s sixteen.
In terms of missiles carried we already plan to reduce by 50%.
Nick Harvey then described an alternative ‘delayed launch’ model that might include a nuclear armed cruise missile that would be stored until required in response to an emerging crisis.
but having perfected that technology simply put it away in a cupboard and keep it as a contingency in case there ever were to be a deterioration in the global security picture that might need the UK government to take it out of the cupboard
Nuclear weapons in a cupboard and asking the Russians what part of their country that would really really mind us flattening, seriously, I know the Liberal Democrats are often seen as being a bit wet but this takes things to a whole new level.
What a preposterous notion that is as wet as an otter’s pocket.
Finally, he indicates that a lower cost method has support within the armed forces because they see their respective sacred cows under threat from the Trident replacement programme .
Believe you me there are very senior figures of all three services who are highly aware of that perfect storm of these costs, who don’t believe the Treasury is going suddenly ride to their rescue with a cheque and who are asking, ‘Is the opportunity cost of having another generation of nuclear weapons too high, in terms of what it would prevent us doing on other fronts?’
I can’t say with certainty how they [military chiefs] will respond, but a number of them made the point to me to not portray it [the report] in such a political and party way that you don’t create the space for some of us to support you and try and help.
That the service chiefs are indicating they would be willing to sacrifice the current form of the nation’s nuclear deterrent in order to spend on the latest shiny conventional baubles is pretty revealing in itself.
Frankly, Trident replacement is a political decision that the MoD and services implement, it really isn’t up to them.
Broadly speaking there are two elements to the deterrent programme, a successor to the Vanguard submarines and a replacement for the Trident II D5 missiles and the warheads they carry.
Successor SSBN
Successor SSBN is a £25 billion multi-year programme that will be delivered in 2028(ish) to replace the current Vanguard class.
The Vanguard class comprises four nuclear powered submarines, Vanguard, Victorious, Vigilant and Vengeance.
Initial Gate was in 2011 and ‘things’ have since started to pick up the pace with enabling contracts awarded. The main industrial partners are BAE Systems, Rolls Royce and Babcock and between the three contractors have so far been awarded contracts to the value of about £350 million for initial research and design work. These initial contracts were also joined by a large £1.1 billion contract for Rolls Royce for the development and production of a new reactor, the PWR3.
The UK Nuclear Propulsion Programme (NPP) has been running since 1954 and delivered propulsion systems for all British nuclear submarines.
PWR1; Valiant, Churchill, Resolution, Swiftsure and Trafalgar classes
PWR2; Vanguard and Astute classes
Those two propulsion systems have supported over 30 million miles of ‘steaming’ from 1966 to the present day and the latest design of PWR2, CORE H, provides a large improvement most significant of which is the elimination of the need to refuel during the submarines life.
PWR3 will provide reduced noise, improved safety and cost reductions over Core H PWR2.
NPP has a long history of cooperation with similar USN programmes and has benefitted significantly.
Rolls Royce employs approximately 2,000 people across Derby, HMNB Devonport, HMNB Clyde, Bristol, Barrow in Furness and HMS Vulcan (Naval Reactor Test Establishment) at Thurso.
The submarine itself will be built by BAE Systems in Barrow, employing approximately 1,500 people.
Current assumptions are for PWR3 powered ‘Derived Astute’ with a Common Missile Compartment.
The design will be larger than the Vanguard class, even though it will carry fewer missiles, in order to accommodate improved systems and habitability.
The Successor design is likely to be very conservative, developing new where necessary, desirable and doable (communications, power, batteries etc) but pulling through as much technology from Astute as possible, for example, sensors and combat management systems.
In order to house the Trident missiles and whatever comes next, the UK and USA have been cooperating on the design for a Common Missile Compartment.
The CMC is an interesting piece of collaborative design designed to provide a modular fit option with the Successor likely to carry only eight tubes in although the Initial Gate Report said this;
Our successor submarines will have only eight operational missiles but it is clear from work to date that the cost of the missile compartment will be minimised by keeping as much of the design as possible common with the US. The baseline design for the CMC is a 12 tube unit and work is ongoing with the US to look at how best to include our requirement for eight operational missiles into this design.
Early this month the design for CMC was finalised;
This document marks significant forward progress for both the U.S. and UK future strategic submarine deterrent programs,” said Brougham. “It is a direct result of the engineering rigor and professionalism of government and industry partners on both shores of the Atlantic.
Ship specifications are critical for the design and construction of the common missile compartment, which will be used by both nations’ replacement fleet ballistic missile submarine (SSBN) programs. Specifically, the First Article Quad Pack Ship Specification establishes a common design and technical requirements for the four missile tubes and associated equipment that comprise each quad pack.
You could draw a number of conclusions from that, the easiest being that the CMC is modular in blocks of four. It might not be though and the quad pack could equally be an insert for a 12 tube outer, who knows?
A decision on 3 or 4 submarines will be taken in 2016.
Trident
The Successor SSBN will carry the existing Trident II D-5 missile, that of course being entirely the point.
The UK uses a shared pool of missiles with the US Navy and our own warhead design. The missiles themselves are being life extended to approximately 2042, co-terminus with the expected out of service life of the USN Ohio class of submarines.
This upgrade and life extension programme includes a new guidance package and upgraded re-entry system.
The current missiles (even if they are life extended) therefore, will be used on the new submarines.
SDSR 2010 stated that Successor will carry up to eight missiles and a maximum of forty warheads, from a reduced pool of both.
8 missiles would still provide a range of options and retaliatory striking power, whether that is a single low yield warhead or the full quantity of twelve independently targeted high yield warheads.
Options
The current working assumption then is for a fleet of 3 or 4 Successor SSBN’s that will be of a relatively low risk design (excepting PWR3) deriving much from Astute, carrying 8 missile launch tubes to the CMC design and utilising a reduce pool of missiles and warheads.
The Trident Alternative Review, headed by the Liberal Democrats, will report on alternative, and one would assume lower cost, alternatives to those plans.
This is pretty interesting because there are many combinations and permutations of systems and doctrine that might combine to produce such a low cost solution;
Reduce the number of boats but still maintain CASD
The PWR3 design will not need refuelling and combined with other modern systems the system engineering derived availability will be much greater. Maintaining continuous availability at the same level of risk might be possible with Successor.
Even if that exact same level of availability cannot be maintained accepting a marginal increase in risk against a modified doctrine would no doubt produce some savings in equipment and running costs but taken across the whole programme over the whole lifetime would those savings be worth the risk or implications of changing the doctrine?
Reduce the availability model
This is somewhere between the RUSI Option 1 – A Normally CASD Submarine Force or Option 2 – A CASD Capable Submarine Force.
The UK’s deterrent is based on the simple model of assured availability, this being the reason our Trident missiles are currently lurking somewhere underwater. They are highly resistant to detection and provide a very fast retaliatory capability against a first strike.
If we accept that the Cold War model of being on a hairpin trigger is no longer valid we might still chose to utilise the submarine launched ballistic missile system but publically state that they may or may not be at sea. This would create some doubt in the mind of potential attackers, sufficient to make them think twice.
A reduction in boats and missiles might be possible with this model but again, would those savings be worth it and given the difficulty in concealing boat sailings it would not be an impossible intelligence task for an enemy to determine whether we were loaded or not and they would easily be able to call our bluff.
Availability could be flexed in response to strategic threats as needed within the constraints of however many boats we produced.
Alternative delivery options
We could always develop our own penetrating cruise missile with growth potential against increasingly sophisticated integrated air defences, a new warhead design, test that new warhead, invest in an army of lawyers and diplomats to deal with the non-proliferation issues of creating an entirely new means of delivering an entirely new nuclear warhead, ensure that should we wish to deploy it put the means of delivery into potentially predictable launch areas and then deal with the possible issues of people wondering whether we were lobbing a conventional or nuclear missile at them.
We might like to ask our nice friends in the US if we could buy a few nuclear land attack cruise missiles but would they still be in service for the lifetime we need, would we be the only user, would we need to consider the proliferation issues of obtaining a new system and would it actually save anything significant.
In 2010 the US announced the phasing out of the nuclear TLAM that would be completed in the following couple of years
We reached a point of mutual confidence that the [Tomahawk] was a redundant system not necessary for effective, extended deterrence
Principal Deputy Defense Undersecretary James Miller
Perhaps the most sobering aspect of using the TLAM-N is the simple fact that during Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003 some ten (1.5%) of conventional missiles were lost, crashing into Saudi Arabia, Iran and Turkey.
Consider that for a moment and compare it against the not insignificant number of test firings of Trident that have achieved a 100% success.
Read more about the TLAM-N if you really need convincing it is not a good idea, click here.
If TLAM-N is not a practical option then we would need to develop not only a missile but warhead as well, test BOTH, develop a support infrastructure, train everyone, completely change our approach and withdraw Trident all before the V Boats go out of service
Oh, and all on our own because no one else is in the market for a system like that, not that we would sell it anyway.
None of the alternative delivery options are convincing from a cost, effectiveness or legal or simply timing perspective.
The cupboard option
As above, we would have to develop everything on our own and then put it into a cupboard, or defensible location.
Neither cheap, cost effective nor a deterrent to anyone; in short, a typically idiotic Liberal Democrat idea that has not been thought through but sounds good in conference season
The RUSI Option 4 – Non Deployed
Or put another way, concentrating your risk in a physical location.
If one is so inclined and decided to go and burgle someones house what would make you think twice as you look through the front window?
This
Or this
Dual use submarines
This envisages a fleet of submarines that carry launch tubes but could also be used for other purposes with the long term rationalisation of the submarine fleet into a single dual role design.
This commonality would reduce the cost significantly and would allow the submarines to utilise the launch tubes for other systems such as cruise missiles or special-forces.
I quite like this option, but with one VERY IMPORTANT caveat and that is the mission of providing the at sea deterrent should never ever be mixed with anything else.
We might use the same boat design, or at least the same sub systems, which would provide commonality savings but the notion that the same ship could safely provide the deterrent on one day and then just nip inshore for a spot of land attack cruise missile launching the next is another preposterous idea.
I have seen this argued on blogs but I don’t think anyone is seriously considering it.
A Few Thoughts
The nuclear deterrent is a multi-decade insurance policy that we dabble with at our peril.
Pushing the Trident replacement costs into the MoD’s Core budget was a cynical act by the coalition government and if it is at all serious about the issue it needs to show political leadership by committing fully and backing with a separated funding stream.
Yes, we are not in the Cold War any more but equally we have proven rather ineffective at looking into the future and we cannot create a UOR for a deterrent.
That said, Successor recognises the change in the threat landscape and will carry 50% fewer missiles than the V Boats
The economic factors that are driving discussion on cheaper alternatives are cyclical in nature and it is unwise to base that insurance policy on short term economic factors.
It is not unreasonable however, to see if we can shave the cost whilst still maintaining credibility and an effective system.
PWR3, systems reuse from Astute and the D5 life extension programme provides the potential to look seriously at the risk profile of using 3 boats instead of 4.
Following on from Successor we might even be able to create a single class of submarines that can do either role with pull through from the work on the common missile compartment but that is far into the future.
The idea of reducing the scope of the CMC fit to 4 missiles in order to reduce overall size and cost is also worth considering.
For now, if the risk assessment provides some assurance, a 3 or 4 boat solution with Trident and a 4 or 8 missile CMC seems the only credible and sensible option with the choice of 3 or 4 down to the details.
FURTHER READING
http://defencewithac.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/a-strange-love.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Trident_system
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Successor_to_the_British_Trident_system
https://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2010/04/a-cheaper-deterrent/
https://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2010/05/back-to-the-future-the-trident-issue/
https://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2012/03/options-for-the-united-kingdoms-nuclear-weapons-programme/
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmdfence/uc225-iv/uc225m02.htm
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/CMC-contract-to-Define-Future-SSBN-Launchers-for-UK-USA-05221/
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmdfence/writev/483/m03.htm
http://www.gdeb.com/news/advertising/images/VPM_ad/VPM.pdf
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2006systems/Wednesday/pavlos.pdf
http://rewreward.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/subs-may-serve-attack-guided-missile.html
http://www.britishpugwash.org/documents/NickRitchie_FutureofTrident23Feb11_FINAL.pdf
http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/7F9F5815-C67B-47B1-B5C4-168E8AB50DC3/0/submarine_initial_gate.pdf
http://robedwards.typepad.com/files/declassified-report-to-mod-defence-board.pdf
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4438392.stm
http://www.ssp.navy.mil/about/history_facts_2.shtml
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20081120170436/royalnavy.mod.uk/server/show/nav.2420
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/New-Nukes-Britains-Next-Gen-Missile-Submarines-07432/
http://nat-mythbusting.blogspot.co.uk/2009/08/off-topic-submarine-porn.html
http://wararchive.blogspot.co.uk/2009/10/vanguard-class-submarine-nuclear.html
http://www.acronym.org.uk/sites/default/files/docs/0811/naorep.pdf
http://www.banthebomb.org/ne/images/stories/pdfs/initial%20gate%20delay.pdf
http://jedibeeftrix.wordpress.com/2012/09/28/thoughts-on-the-successor-deterrent-cmc-is-in/
Always a charged debate (sure to follow), the nuclear weapon is outdated, morally wrong and unfortunately still entirely necessary. Well reviewed TD.
There is another issue in that the UK places nuclear weapons into the same category as biological, chemical and radiological weapons, i.e. a universal category of ‘weapons of mass destruction’. There is therefore an element of deterrence against these less technologically demanding but still effective and vile weapons, which can only be a good thing.
That said I doubt if the Successor and the follow-on to Astute will ever be common – size alone would prevent the design of an effective SSN. No reason why technology can’t be pulled across though, in every area except hull design.
If a nuke explodes it will have a fingerprint. Why do you think we sent out a VC10 with a sniffer pod after the North Korean test? We would have a pretty good idea which reactor type was used to enrich the fuel. That lets you trace the likely nation.
The UK Trident warhead has a 100-120kt yield with fusion boost. Remove that & you have a clean(by nuke standards) tactical 10kt warhead.
So have 5 warheadsx 8 tubes x 4 boats= 160 x100 kt “end of world”.
Then 40 x 10 kt tactical bombs, perhaps with JDAM guidance & Diamondback wing kit. Launched from F-35B , Typhoon & hopefully something longer legged.
How safe are Syrias chemical weapons? or Pakistans Nukes?
4 boats not 3 is the sensible option. Saying 3 is basically saying I don’t know what I am on about. Just as saying it will never happen infers a lack of grasp of history’s most basic lesson, it does happen, and often happens to those who appease and dismiss threats.
£3billion cut in international and we could have 4 16 tube boats again.
Let us wait and see what happens with Iran. And how public perceptions change if live ordnance gets exchanged in the South China Sea.
I posted this on an Italian site, but thought I should put it here as well:
A thought about the numbers needed for the future SSBN.
My understanding is that you need 3 conventional ships to have one deployed at all times. This compares to 4-for-1 for a deterence platform. My understanding is that this difference is because 3-for-1 is “nearly all the time”, which is good enough for a conventional requirement, but not for a deterence platform.
Specifically, is it the mid-life-refit time period that consumes the extra platform?
So, that being the case, how about: a common “SSGBN” design, that can be fitted with either Trident, or cruise missile hept-packs, at short notice.
The 1st one build would be fitted as an SSGN, and the next 3 as SSBNs. When it comes time for the mid life refit for the class, the first one gets changed to an SSBN when it comes out of its refit. So during the refit period, there would be 4 SSBN platforms. When the last one comes out of refit, it gets changed to an SSGN.
So, for time periods in which one can be confident that 3 platforms will be sufficient, then one gets converted to the SSGN role.
(Further, one could even build 5 or 6 SSGBNs, with 2 or 3 fulfilling the requirements for conventional platforms – aren’t we a bit short of SSN numbers at the moment? – This would not only increase the conventional capability – it would also increase the resillience of the deterrence to the loss of one of the boats to an accident.)
***
I am a little worried by the plan to reduce to only 8-missile SSBNs.
By concern is: what if Russia does what the US has done, and deploys a national ABM system? 200 – maybe even 400 – ABMs facing the Atlantic.
For ABM to make sense, the expense of the required ABMs (4-5 per target?) must be less than the ICBMs.
MIRVs significantly reduce the cost of the ICMBs.
However, for a submarine based deterence, you also need to factor in the substantial cost of the submarine, and of the 3 additional SSBNs needed to ensure that one is available.
More specifically for our situation, ABMs can be built much faster than additional SSBNs.
So, whilst 8 Tridents are sufficient now, I would want our SSBNs to be able to quickly scale and react to any possible Russian ABM system.
So, the ability to quickly and cheaply increase the warheads per missile, missiles per boat, and ideally the number of boats assigned to the SSBN role.
(It the cost of the CMC really a significant proportion of the total boat cost?)
None deployed is even more stupid than that.
Because under what situation would we actually deploy it?
Tanks speeding into Georgia?
Fighters overflying Poland?
Artilery fire on Lithuania?
Tense situation, here, have some petrol and a lit match!
Mike
Thats why dual role subs make such sense.
We can add a second or a third at sea SSBN boat without a great deal of trouble, just buy more missiles to arm them
X, the three or four question for Vanguards was based on the need to refuel, PWR2 H and PWR3 do not need this and with modern systems the very complex risk calculation changes. All I am saying is that it is a reasonable question to ask, neither you or I have access to the details
I really do think TrT has hit the nail on the head, indeed this issue of being in the right place and ready; maybe turning up the heat but NOT ACTUALLY LIGHTING THE PETROL is absolutely crucial.
I think it is an equally valid argument for not getting carried away with ‘fitted for not with’ and shared components/mission equipment handed around from platform to platform.
A few points on 3 vs 4.
We have operated with 3 Boats since Feb 2002 when Vanguard entered her mid life upgrade program. So we have maintained CASD with 3 subs for 10 years and will do so for another 3 or 4.
Just because we do not have to refuel a reactor does not mean we do not have to refit the submarine. It should however take less than the 40 months that the V boats took.
Perhaps even driving down towards a SSN length refit.
A lot of flexibility is gained by multi crewing.
It is however an interesting issue and one which will no doubt generate a lot of discussion.
Have edited my dodgy math at the beginning of post. All of my mental maths capacity being used trying to work out how we are going to get out of jail in the Ryder Cup.
APATS, we should nuke em and declare a draw :)
No 4. Submarines are quite complex. Or perhaps they are not? Back in the 60s the plan was for 5 R-boats to maintain the deterrent. They may have been major improvements in reliability between then and now. But similarly Systems are certainly more complicated. It isn’t like these things catch fire or get grounded or bump into other submarines or even have problems with the heads now is it? You could have 3 crews, but if they don’t have a submarine to drive what use are they? Isn’t the RN having trouble maintaining submarine crew numbers anyway? Operating 3 hulls and having 4 isn’t the same as having just 3 hulls?
‘Let us wait and see what happens with Iran. And how public perceptions change if live ordnance gets exchanged in the South China Sea’.
I suspect the general public will be pretty clear on the
‘f*ucking idiots are nuking each other, please lets not ‘stand sholder to sholder with our US allies’ this time…’ point.
TD
I have to say in effect you have persuaded me that in the absence of and effective alternative delivery system to trident. TLAM seeming to be on the way out, then Trident is the only realistic option.
However.. bearing in mind that several of the leading poiticians of both parties in the 70’s and 80’s have stated the idea that if somehow russia nuked uk alone. That the uk would hae retaliated against russia, as laughable.
I did not then, and do not now, see the need to keep the instant- destroy a large country deterent. no one is pointing nukes at us now only really the russians could or would, and are they going to pick us out of the whole of europe on our own.. If they retarget misiles at the west, it will be in general and that woiuld involve the US.
Hi, Mike Wheatley. The next gen launchers are intended to be reconfigurable for ballistic missiles, cruise or vehicles, so you should get your adaptable SSBGN.
Having four or eight launch tubes keeps cropping up, but the only government sourced document that I’ve seen on this aspect mentions the CMC having 12 tubes. I’d be interested to see any new information that may have been released. The only other numbers put about seem to stem from the likes of RUSI’s thought exercise on alternatives. Also, talk of building a CMC with this number or that number of launchers ignores the fact that deviation from whatever was agreed with the Americans will result in a British Missile Compartment, not a Common Missile Compartment.
@ SI – “Always a charged debate (sure to follow), the nuclear weapon is outdated, morally wrong and unfortunately still entirely necessary.”
agreed, great summary admin.
the ‘answers’ will not easily be found.
@ BB – “Also, talk of building a CMC with this number or that number of launchers ignores the fact that deviation from whatever was agreed with the Americans will result in a British Missile Compartment, not a Common Missile Compartment.”
agreed, but CMC is talked about as a four tube module…………. 2×2 or 1×4 has ye to be revealed.
Hi, Jedi. “cmc is talked about as a four tube module”.
Yes, but who exactly is talking about a four tube module? Discussing the merits of various system options, or expressing one’s own opinion is not necessarily relevent to what is actually underway.
Like I say, the only official word I’m aware of comes from this side of the Pond, and says 12 launchers. I’ve not seen anything from any US gov’t or military source, or from Electric Boat itself, that contradicts that number.
Brian, just updated the post with a bit of information that didnt make the final cut, covering the CMC
@ Mike Wheatley
ABM systems are a big concern for me especially given so few missiles and warheads. One could argue that a Trident D5 just off the coast would be very hard to defend against with any ABM system but then if the SSBN has to come in this close you could say that you would be better off with a cruise missile anyway.
If the CMC comes with 12 tubes we should just take the extra even if we are not going to use them. Cost savings of 8 vs. 12 are likely to be next to nothing.
In terms of TLAM (N) this is a very old very slow un-stealthy system which is obviously obsolete. However just because it is does not me that the Nuclear cruise missiles concept is dead. Faster moving stealthy weapon like Peruses would be immensely difficult to defend against. Having six of these each armed with a 150kt warhead travelling towards you biggest cities is quite a deterrent for anyone.
In the not too distant future a single ground or space based laser may be able to neutralise an entire batter fired by a trident sub. However no matter how advanced laser become they will have all the same problems that guns or missiles have today intercepting low flying cruise missiles.
In the event of a complete surprise attach it might take a nuclear armed SSN a bit of time to get in range. However this scenario is very unlikely and we would probably expect a minimum of several weeks of escalating tension meaning that any response from us would probably be just as fast as an SLBM.
“Yes, but who exactly is talking about a four tube module? Discussing the merits of various system options, or expressing one’s own opinion is not necessarily relevent to what is actually underway.”
Accepted Brian.
Does anyone know if the US is still considering a shorter range intermediate ballistic missile as a trident replacement? I know there was talk of it before. Such a system could be ideal for us as it would allow an SSN to carry the weapon without the need to be too large and cumbersome for SSN duties.
http://www.nti.org/gsn/article/pentagon-unveils-new-plan-conventional-submarine-based-ballistic-missiles/
seems they are still considering it. Could a nuclear tipped version be a better idea for us fired from a modified Astute?
Just as an aside, since we see SSN’s as missile platforms as much as torpedo ones, if the CMC is available in quad Trident / 28 pack TLAM modules, adding it to Astute 2 just seems sensible: it’s another variant on the US “TLAM’s sit in VL launchers between the pressure hulls” that I wish we’d copied
Considering our finances, there is no debate: CASD is the only solution. [And as we are considering a bigger boat, sixteen-tubes should be an obvious requirement (as redundancy-systems are a must)!]
The bigger questions cannot be asked now: How do we fund it? George Osbourn made – IMHO – the wrong decision (in converting CASD from a political tool into a military requirement) to placate the Lib-Dems.
Maybe – just maybe – reorganising Defence, F&CO and DFID into a coherant whole may be he solution. An article in ‘The Economist’ – pre May 2010 – hinted that a Tory government would allocate 30% of DFID’s budget to the MoD: Shame we now have a coalition…. :(
@TD – another excellent and interesting article. I disagree but that’s not surprising…
RE: Smaller missile. I had a quick look at the old Resolution class while researching the successor/CMC – only a tad bigger than the Astute and smaller than the suggested 10k ton hybrid sub… However, would the Yanks be happy for us to put a nuclear warhead on what is specificly meant to be a conventional strike weapon? And wouldn’t wouldn’t doing so breach the NPT?
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resolution_class_submarine
Structurally I should guess a 12 tube CMC should be able to loose 4 tubes. It is how the module interfaces to bow and stern that is the problem. Submarines flex but you can’t have a submarine that sags or hogs. As I said elsewhere it would be easier to have the CMC but only outfit the inner 8 with tubes and blank out the outer 4. I am still trying to figure out how making the SSN greater in the beam by 8 feet saves money on expensive hull steels, anechoic tiles, sub-systems, stronger (which means heavier) planes (and so more expensive) as there would be a fatter boat to manoeuvre through the water. etc. etc. and so on. Shame this isn’t a forum or I could off and start a thread about stretching F35 to carry MOABs.
@ Swimming Trunks re R-boats
It isn’t the boats. Go look at the Polaris missile; it was a much smaller system. You are not comparing like with like.
If the main theatre of operations for our security operations is the India Ocean region then we need a missile that can reach out to our potential enemies in that region. Polaris sized missile won’t do that.
It would seem that nuclear boats are getting beamier regardless of payloads, just because the reactors are getting bigger.
How big will pwr3 be?
It would seem unlikely that we would codevelop pwr2+ alongside pwr3 just to have a smaller option for SSN’s…….
@ x – “If the main theatre of operations for our security operations is the India Ocean region then we need a missile that can reach out to our potential enemies in that region. Polaris sized missile won’t do that.”
And that is who exactly?
@ Fluffy Thoughts
We choose not to buy these things. The LibDems are like fairies, they only exist if you pay them attention. Their actions in government have shown while their much favour PR system will never work. Shutting down deterrent would, not even talking in terms of our security, would directly imping on the lives of 10,000s. Probably more than are actual members of that party. Giving the LDs the deterrent review was a political master stroke. One it fed the organisation’s ego. Two their findings would show them up for what they, allow the findings to be dismissed easily, and allow the serious business of defending the UK to go on. The UK’s position in the world rests on three pillars. The City, our shared culture with the English speaking peoples of the world primarily the US, and the fact that we have an SSBN capability that means we could in theory deliver 96 wardheads out to 7500nm. The LibDems hate all three of those things. They would hobble the City, make us a vassal to France, and strip us of the one defence capability (standfast SF) that actually does what it says on the tin. I like most Chinese I know. But you are talking about a society that leaves girl babies in gutters, has execution buses, etc. etc. They have different values to us. Though I think clash of cultures is done to death you have to wonder whether “them or us” and how we defend us.
@ Jedibeef
Astute is big because of its reactor. There is significant difference in volume between a sphere with a diameter of say 20ft and one with a diameter of 21ft let alone one with a diameter of 28ft.
I am in favour of retaining some sort of deterrent, whether it’s full blown or some sort of adapted/reduced version.
Assuming the most likely path is taken (3-4 SSBN’s with around 8 missile tubes) then where is this 20+ billion to pay for it going to come from?
All 3 services are being cut to the bone as it is, their is no additional fat.
So what would people look to scrap or reduce when we start to pitifully look around for the cash? It’s not as if you’re going to find it down the back of the sofa!
My question too.
Common Agricultural Policy…
http://www.arrse.co.uk/strategic-defence-spending-review-2010/188149-soft-power-worth-cost-4.html
I’m sure there’s scope for transferring some of the foreign aid budget to the Humanitarian Relief Division of the Armed Forces too, yes.
@ Challenger
“So what would people look to scrap or reduce when we start to pitifully look around for the cash? It’s not as if you’re going to find it down the back of the sofa!”
Not sure if we are going to have to scrap anything but we won’t see another major project started until the late 2020’s which means that the forces will have to live with what they have. Can the army go until 2032 with out some form of FRES UV? There will be no Tornado replacement. No nice stealthy UCAV and probably half as many T26’s built with nothing more than 40 or so JCA’s in service.
There won’t even be money for upgrades of old kit. £ 25 billion just for the boats is equivalent to CVF, JCA, Astute, Nimrod and FRES SV combined. Its just not there short of Belgian style conventional forces
@Martin
Even if nothing is scrapped to pay for the deterrent then as you say the alternative is to shelf a great deal or possibly all of the planned acquisitions and upgrades for the next 15 years, this is an unacceptable situation.
At the very least I think, as others have suggested, that other departments need to contribute. Either the foreign office could stump up some cash or some of the aid budget could be deflected. Perhaps the treasury itself needs to put some money in, anything that means the MOD doesn’t have to foot the entire bill.
@Brian Black
CMC is four tubes (like VPM) – here’s a random open source for you, from last year :
http://www.public.navy.mil/subfor/underseawarfaremagazine/Issues/Archives/issue_45/ohio_2.html
Search for “four missile tubes”, it’s near the bottom.
As an aside, the main reason the USN went from 20 tubes to 16 tubes was so that they could reuse the Virginia reactor rather than uprating it. SSBN(X) will largely be a Virginia in a bigger cylinder – even the USN can’t afford to build a SSBN from scratch.
@TD – don’t forget that PWR3 is currently planned to be trialled in Ajax, so you can assume it won’t be much bigger than PWR2 (and the trend suggests it will be a bit smaller). That kind of risk reduction has Bernard Gray’s fingerprints all over it – the Successor power plant was one of the first big decisions after he took the job.
@JBT – you keep going on about the 1×4 vs 2×2 thing but do the maths – it’s basic Pythagoras, for something that long and thin the 2×2 configuration increases the diameter required by less than 5% over 1×4. In the context that’s nothing.
@TD Trident has its failures as well, it’s running at a couple of percent. The big problem with Tomahawks is that they get shot down by any half-competent enemy. After all, a Tomahawk is just a glorified doodlebug – and they could be gunned down by Spitfires for flip’s sake!
Yes BMD is on its way – but at the moment even sophisticated countries like the UK and France don’t have a real BMD capability. Sea Viper is pretty bleeding edge – but as installed on T45 it can’t shoot down ballistic missiles, whereas even good old Sea Dart could take out cruise missiles (Gloucester‘s Silkworm in GW1). OK – Block 1 Aster will add capability against short-range ballistic missiles – think Scud or V-2, but even that is a long way from taking out long-range (ie much higher and faster) ballistic missiles, which in turn is a long way from taking out steerable ballistic missiles.
If the red team have BMD capability, you can be certain they will be lethal against mere cruise missiles.
@martin
As I said in the open thread, the prompt global strike missile is the main driver for the whole VPM thing – unfortunately it’s one of the main victims of the sequestration mess as it’s just getting to the stage where the big money gets spent, and Washington’s current paralysis means that it can’t happen – and even if it does, the “global” bit looks like it may be dropped.
Still – it’s an interesting option if you can get a ballistic missile inside a vanilla SSN, even if the missile is only say Polaris-ranged. That means you can’t strike central Asia without going into shallow waters like the Med, but a PGS-N is a more realistic cut-price option than some of the others mentioned. Only trouble is that it would probably run into treaty issues, it would need a new warhead which would need testing, and you get the “perception” problem of using the same missile for conventional and nuclear strike. I’d guess you would be pushing it to have it ready in time for the retirement of the V-boats from 2028.
£25b doesn’t even buy you a single years worth of contributions to the EU Structural fund alone, which was about £33b last year. Common Agricultural Policy, our own Foreign Aid decisions, Common Fisheries Policy contributions, General European Fund, EU Transport contributions…
There’s £4.5b suggested to be saved per annum on a simple redistribution change in EU, this backed by France no less(!), and that kind of small savings alone could pay for this kind of project in under six years, before it even had to pass one of its significant gates.
Heck, we’ve printed an extra £375bn alone since 2008, out of thin air, yet our inflation rates continue to drop. This is the real reason why we’re not in Italy/Spain’s position by the way, Bond purchasers know we can print cash where the EU can’t. That makes their biggest risk a devaluation on exchange rates if they wanted to spend that yield outside of the UK.
How many years would this oft-mentioned £25b for the boats actually be spread over? When would milestone payments have to be made? Now? Up front before the project? Some now, some on each delivered boat? Are doing a T26 design phase? Does this £25b include inflation over the next twenty years?
If we want a CASD nuclear deterrent, we could bloomin’ well find the cash for it (and other projects) in a heartbeat.
Your main obstacle is landing a project with the promised units in a reasonable time and pretty much on budget. Do that and the MRA4’s of this world won’t get canned. Show that what is considered to be (but isn’t, relatively speaking) a lot of money is being spent carefully and the press will report the local jobs and the cutting edge in British technology merrily.
Overrun, delay, be forced to ditch capabilities, and the press highlight how many hybrid-electric environmental cars Joe Public could have bought for the same price. In a world of mass uneducated public scrutiny, keeping projects running smoothly is a key PR skill.
This is where the likes of the PWR3 trials on AJAX (EDIT: Nod to El Sid, just read your comment) and reusing Virginia/Astute experience just makes sense. If we needed to design a boat from scratch we’d do that, but nobody has pointed out a fundamental flaw in the approach that we’re currently taking and so evolution is sensible.
Defence is 2.5% of an annual GDP that is now measured in Trillions. Get creative.
Sure, we’d all vote for no deterrent if you or I thought our kids who are either at home or in school as I right this could live without it, but the cold truth be told that not one of you here would be happy with them having to bring a knife to a gun fight if the shit ever hits the fan.
How about a new Title?
“Defender of the Realm” or some such.
Donate £0.5b or more to a defence project and get Knighted (or equivalent). Have a T26 named after you, or a class of MPA aircraft. Successor V-Boat, etc.
How does the P-8K Jedibeeftrix MPA variant sound? HMS x?
Whatever floats your boat. Or ours, literally.
Could even reuse an existing, traditional or defunct title if you can think of a better one. Just like back in the day, helping His/Her Majesty to protect the nation.
Plenty of folks would be happy to pay/sponsor for the Kudos.
EDIT: One way to get your ENNIS class vessels named?
@The Other Chris
‘Defence is 2.5% of an annual GDP that is now measured in Trillions. Get creative’.
My thoughts in a nutshell!
A next generation deterrent, whatever it actually is could be funded in a heartbeat from all manner of sources that would spare the MOD the pain of dealing with the costs on it’s lonesome.
That is why it’s so frustrating to see the situation as it currently stands.
@ El Sid – I did not know that about Ajax, Finally a little sense. Given the total project for 7 Astutes was around £7 billion one has to ask why Successor is costing so much given that they are de risking everything in advance.
Polaris served us well for the actual cold war trident only came in later so a smaller 1,000 mile range missile makes a lot of sense and is still immensely effective.
I take what you are saying about warheads etc. Could a better idea be to simply go back and rebuild Polaris. It sounds crazy but half the space rockets in use today are even older ballistic missile design’s. A single megaton warhead with 1,000 mile range would be pretty effective. No idea of the difficulties of re-engineering a 50 year old missile but it’s got to be simpler than building Trident E6.
Using an existing warhead design should get us around any treaty issues. I am not aware that we have ever signed up to the intermediate ballistic missile treaty and I don’t think Polaris would come under this anyway.
@ The Other Chis
I agree with everything you say. But its cloud coco land to think that DFID, Welfare or the NHS are going to be cut to pay for defence. I think the military and most of us are just living in the fantasy that Osborne was only joking about the MOD funding trident and that post 2015 a Labour or Tory administration will come in an reverse it all. However in 2016 the country will in on its 6th year of austerity. It’s likely to require until well after 2020 to get back to any kind of budget normalcy.
Turing round and finding an extra £25 billion is just not on the cards in that environment.
Once a decision like this has been made (and let’s not forget it has already been made) there is little if any chance of reversing it not matter how silly it seems. The country can easily afford trident, four carriers an Army of 100,000 and an Air force with 300 planes. It just doesn’t want to.
@The other Chris
“Bond purchasers know we can print cash where the EU can’t.”
First, the ECB is covering the Eurozone, of which the UK is not a member, while it continues to be within the EU.
Second, they actually do print money, in fact the ECB buys as many spanish or greek bonds, as are available. Currently, the ECB holds €1.4b of south-european bonds, with the countries having no chance to escape from their economic dilemma: the fact, that the euro is actually too strong for them.
@ X
“I like most Chinese I know. But you are talking about a society that leaves girl babies in gutters, has execution buses, etc. etc. They have different values to us. Though I think clash of cultures is done to death you have to wonder whether “them or us” and how we defend us.”
I am not sure if Trident is the best way to do this. If the Chinese for instance invaded the middle east we lack credibility because they know or at least believe that we would only use Nuclear weapons as a last ditched effort if they used them against us.
The best deterrence to such a future action in my mind is a large fleet of SSN’s sinking Chinese vessels in the IO cutting them off from most of their food and oil. Very credible and very effective. If they can’t get past Burma then we have nothing to worry about. Butchering the forces to pay for a nuclear detterent does not make us safer.
Martin said “Polaris served us well for the actual cold war trident only came in later so a smaller 1,000 mile range missile makes a lot of sense and is still immensely effective.”
Polaris is all we had. Nobody foresaw the end of Cold War; you never what is around the corner which is the argument for deterrent. If a “1000 mile” range missile served us so well why isn’t Trident a “1000 mile” missile? We are lucky that the current system has enough range to counter possible threats from the east. Enabling the launch vehicle to safely paddle around (near) home waters. (Where in times of crisis we can easily concentrate defences.)
Thanks TD, that’s what I’m talking about (4 tube CMC modules). Now find me GTAV’s release date.
@ Martin
The only answer to a nuclear capability is another nuclear capability. Us having our bomb cancels out them having their bomb. As you say the test will come in a crisis. There has only been one instance in history where combatants have given up superior weapons bilaterally. The Japanese dumped muskets (they were far ahead of European designs at the time) and returned to swords, bows, and arrows. The nuclear genie is out of the bottle and humanity is too immature to put it back.
As for butchering forces making us no safer. Well our conventional forces (stand fast SF) don’t make us safer either. The UK’s main trouble is that we spend on is to diffuse. We neither are the US with their depth or like our European Allies who are all front line and no depth, we are caught in the middle. And that is no good.
Sry, it must be €1.4 trillion in my previous post.
“£25b”
An Astute costs £1b. Even if each sub costs double or triple that number, it falls short of £25b.
Even if we develop our own missile, taking the french M51-programme as a measure, it will not exceed £4b.
Add £1b for renewing the supporting infastructure, and another billion for adding bandwith in space, I cannot imagine more than £18b at worst. Or are they expecting to make the same errors while developing Astute to be made again?
If we retain existing Trident-missiles, SLEP them, develop a 12-missile-humped-Astute derivate I fail to see how the programme will ever exceed £10b.
What am I missing?
Or we pay Reaction Engines a couple of billions, and we add a nuclear payload module to the then existing Skylon spaceplane.
@ El-Sid – “you keep going on about the 1×4 vs 2×2 thing but do the maths – it’s basic Pythagoras, for something that long and thin the 2×2 configuration increases the diameter required by less than 5% over 1×4. In the context that’s nothing.”
Yes, I am beginning to appreciate that. Thanks. ;)
@ TOC – “Donate £0.5b or more to a defence project and get Knighted (or equivalent). How does the P-8K Jedibeeftrix MPA variant sound? HMS x?”
Sounds just dandy, sign me up.
p.s. i’m still fairly convinced that core defence spending is (or soon will be) bumping along the NATO 2.0%, and that the other 0.5% is discretionary funding from the Treasury for operations ongoing.
p.p.s. agree on being creative, i’d love to see DfID fund the RFA Bays and a brace of hospital ships.
I have to confess to finding the whole discussing about putting Trident on stretched Astute rather bemusing. By all means while away the time with idle chatter (decently put and thoughtful chatter at that), but it has to go with the fantasy fleets section. It may make good financial and practical sense, but it has no bearing on the strategic context.
As TD has pretty much stated in his article, the Deterrent is a strategic requirement, not a military one. Bizarre as it sounds, the Detterent has no military use beyond that of good training for submarine crews and engineers. Hence it was funded differently. By bringing it into the MOD budget, Osbourne may have shot Conservative policy on a for like replacement because the MOD/service chiefs are probably not willing to take the pain. When that penny drops, I suspect another of those U-turns…
The major issue against SSGNs or whatever is strategic and also credible protection. Taking potection first, wherever the Deterrent is, it has to be protected in a way that does not reveal its position. If you have to send it to the Indian Ocean to be able to deter someone, you have to devote a silly amount to protecting it. Doing so in the Atlantic is much easier especially when you can ask the Americans to keep an eye on things too. There is also another protection factor, if a foreign sub (read Russian, Iranian or whoever) detects a Vanguard with another sub the rules of the game are different for that with Astute. They would enjoy hassling an Astute, they would only follow a Vanguard if they think they can do it dicreetly. Any SSBN of any nation is always treated carefully because if you accidently sink it, you just upped the ante to a dangerous level. Those were the cold war rules and while that war may be over, obeying those rules is safer for all concerned!
The other issue is strategic – many nations have a policy of not supporting nuke armed subs for political/environmental reasons. If you have SSGNs and refuse to tell people where the nuke armed ones are, most nations will just have a blanket ban on SSGNs being in their waters. Want to launch TLAM from SSGNs at Libya again? Try getting it into the med or flying in urgent spare parts like we did with the T-boats which everyone knows don’t carry nukes. This reason severely cuts down where you can deploy SSGNs. It also blurs the cold war era rules I mentioned above. Any blurring of anything involving nukes is a bad thing and to be avoided. What happens if someone sinks one in a hot conflict and it has nukes? Do we see it as a strategic threat akin to sinking a Vanguard or do we desperately try and recover the nukes before someone else does because some muppet put it too close to danger?
Short story and to stop my rant is that if you want a proper Deterrent, you have to do it properly and it lives in a very compartmentalised world. Everyone knows where they stand with a CASD sub, other subs know to be very discreet near it, the reporting chain in the military is different and in fact the whole ethos even within the submarine service is different to that of the conventional force. The Yanks did a big report on it (sorry no links) after the Air Force moved nukes instead of other payloads around and they directly blamed it on there not being a compartmentalised ethos and a blurring of responsibilities between conventional and non-conventional forces.
TD makes a very good point, the Lib Dems are sprouting nonsense. You either do Deterrent properly albeit to best value or you don’t do it at all. You cannot compromise security or safety standards with nukes and this is not cheap.
@ TOC re Europe
As I say we choose not to buy these things. It isn’t that they are unaffordable.
£6billion, half the overseas aid budget pa, spent on defence hardware alone would see all our procurement problems ended. That is £6billion on buying stuff, not testing and pissing to inflate BAE’s profits. We could buy a brigade’s worth of 8×8 (off the shelf) at £3million for £540,000,000. Heck an SA80 replacement. New software for Chally2. And we still would have only spent a billion. A 5in gun for every escort and 2087 for every T2x would cost only £.5billion. The other half billion could be spent on new dry stores ships. And I am sure the pro-RAF bods here could come up with some quick kill procurement buys for a billion. A billion could have built three new barrack and married quaters complexs so my county regiment wouldn’t have been chopped. That is £4billion off the top of my head. £5billion a year goes along way. Imagine that over a decade or twenty years.
@ martin – “Could a better idea be to simply go back and rebuild Polaris. It sounds crazy but half the space rockets in use today are even older ballistic missile design’s.”
Isn’t this what the french do, more or less, and doesn’t their nuclear establishment cost roughly twice as much?
adhereing to the subsidised american standard, and leasing from a common pool of american stock, still seems to be the most cost efficient way to provide a serious* deterrent.
* i.e. more than half a dozen 10kt warheads in a bunker underneath AWE.
@ DJ – “They would enjoy hassling an Astute, they would only follow a Vanguard if they think they can do it discreetly. Any SSBN of any nation is always treated carefully because if you accidentally sink it, you just upped the ante to a dangerous level. Those were the cold war rules and while that war may be over, obeying those rules is safer for all concerned!”
Best argument i have heard so far against a dual-capable SS(B)N.
“By bringing it into the MOD budget, Osbourne may have shot Conservative policy on a for like replacement because the MOD/service chiefs are probably not willing to take the pain. When that penny drops, I suspect another of those U-turns…”
Isn’t that rather the purpose of this discussion – what happen if the penny doesn’t drop?
What happens if £25b isn’t magicked out of the air to pay for the acquisition costs of the deterrent replacement?
I’ll be the first to cheer if HMG decides to bleed the DfID and EU budgets white in order to fund this strategic requirement………….. but colour me skeptical!
What the Lib Dems appear to be looking at is effectively nuclear disarmament, whilst maintaining a nominal status as a nuclear power.
Their plan perhaps recognizes that total nuclear disarmament is a one way street as a NPT signatory, and hopes to win support amongst those who lean towards disarmament but are nervous about the finality of it.
A nominal nuclear status retains the prestige value of being a nuclear state – ‘great-power’ status for those who measure such terms on a nuclear scale. Also hopes to reassure those who believe that we need nuclear weapons in order to keep hold of our key to the executive toilets at the UN.
@ Jedi
“Isn’t this what the French do, more or less, and doesnt their nuclear establishment cost roughly twice as much?”
Essentially yes but they have designed everything from scratch. I am just spit balling really but if we have the designs for the Polaris missile then re building it should not be beyond our capability. If it allows us to then fit them inside an SSN then it saves allot of cost and problems. We just start building Astute batch 2 SSBGN PWR 3 and go from there.
Again no idea of the cost of a rebuilt Polaris but if its less than £ 10 billion then its probably a cheaper alternative. Call it a 95% effective detterant.
“The other issue is strategic – many nations have a policy of not supporting nuke armed subs for political/environmental reasons.”
@ Desk Jocky
I am curious, other than the USA, where do our SSN’s go into friendly ports. I had a friend who served on a T boat and I don’t think he ever once went into port any where. Maybe thing’s have changed now.
@ BB – “What the Lib Dems appear to be looking at is effectively nuclear disarmament, whilst maintaining a nominal status as a nuclear power.”
That maybe what they might hope for, and it may form the basis on their negotiating position, but i guess we’ll have to wait and see what this report says…………….
@ Martin – still think is sounds ‘custom’ and thus expensive.
Martin,
Anywhere that has a suitable berth. Brest, Toulon Gib and Souda off the top of my head.
Also Fujarah in the UAE and Bahrain. Simonstown in south Africa.
@martin
On port visits, they do happen, see eg the bottom of page 2:
http://content.yudu.com/Library/A1slxo/NavyNewsJune2011/resources/2.htm
You also have the “unplanned” port visits like the _year_ Tireless spent in Gibraltar when she had reactor problems – and you will note how upset the Spanish got about that, let alone if she had been carrying instant sunshine.
On costs – an Astute runs to about £1.4bn in 2011 money, and that’s excluding R&D costs. So four Astutes would cost the best part of £6bn just to build in 2011. The £25bn figure for the Successor boats is an outturn cost – so the cost of building them in 20 years time. So it includes about £11bn to cover inflation – which is obviously a pretty subjective number. It’s about £14bn in current money. Given that includes R&D, and that you’re not only talking about something with ~50% more displacement than Astute (and cost doesn’t scale 1:1 with size), plus a new nuclear reactor and that you’ve got to incorporate an underwater version of Cape Canaveral – £14bn is not completely crazy.
The Spanish never seem to complain when USN SSN’s visit any of their ports. Odd that……..
First and foremost trident is a weapon of national defense and IMO should be considered as part of defense budget. As such it must take its place in the equipment budget and justify its place there against all the other requirements. To suggest otherwise is attempting to have your cake and eat it.
Does the UK need to retain a nuclear deterrent? On balance probably yes simply because as north korea ect has shown you only need to have the weapon to be seen as a nuclear power.
There are eight declared nuclear powers of which Russia, china, india, pakistan, and north korea would be seen as the need to deter we all have issues with the french but I cant see us delivering instant sunshine to paris. These states include possibly a nuclear Iran and would be the only countries a nuclear weapon would be released against and so deterrence is required in response to those states. But what form should that deterrence take.
Article 5 NATO
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
It is through this agreement that the USA is the ultimate guarantor of western democracy. We share the trident system and as far as I know once launched its impossible to tell if its a US or UK missile that is fired. If the US fires in anger thats it. In essence if anyone fires a nuclear weapon the counter attack of any country is such were all done either in the initial attack or the significant climate change that would result it is the end game. Would anyone know the difference if the uk never sailed a ssbn with weapons stored?
With article 5 still in place and the corner stone of UK security we only need a UK contribution to that as such does our capability need to be the gold plated absolute or is that requirement the nato one and by definition the US. Would have retaining the WE177 nuclear bomb made us less safe would integration of a future weapon on F35 make us less safe or offer a significant but reduce capabilty against all but the super powers the answer could be yes. Would developing ABMD on type 45 further enhance uk defence removing the possibility of a single unexpected missile being fired at us this after all is the Japanese position.
Well if Congress will not fund a new missile, but the USN wants a smaller missile, why not drop the hint to our American cousins that an updated Trident I (C4) would do the Royal Navy (& USN) nicely.
Trident C4 is 10.4 m long while Trident D5 is 13.96 m long. So C4 would fit easier in a modified Virginia or Astute.
Callaghan wanted C4 for the RN, Mrs T only went (reluctantly) to D5 to keep commonality with the Americans. If the Americans went back to an updated C4, it would suit the UK nicely.
One (crazy) thought – can anyone ever see us using nuclear weapons and the US not? I cannot, therefore, why don’t we just ‘rent’ one of their SSBNs and crew it with RN personnel? We can then feel like we are doing are bit, but might save a few bob.
I’m actually for multi-role subs, armed with modern nuclear tipped supersonic cruise missiles…
I echo Repulse’s comment re the use.
Re my comment on the open thread… if these are let loose then its pretty much ‘game over’ in terms of conventional forces.
However, I agree with TD’s assumption here.
Its barely an RN asset, its a national one.
@John Hartley
C4 vs D5 partly comes down to whether you just want to chip bits off Moscow or flatten it completely. So broadly something more like C4 might be where we’re ultimately heading (qv PGS-N). However there’s the practical problem that the current D5’s will last until the 2040’s (after SLEPing) whereas the submarines will retire from 2028 (and even that is after life extension). So if you want to introduce “C4-sized” submarines from 2028, then you have to bring forward the development of a new missile system to before 2028-ish, which just makes your budget squeeze far worse. One option might be to park the D5’s in silos in the Lake District for 15 years, but that’s not ideal as your only deterrent.
@Repulse
You’re talking about the “Bugger Barrow” option – if we don’t make Successor here then we’re pretty much saying goodbye to domestic manufacture of submarines. Which is what we’ve pretty much done to combat aircraft with the way we’ve gone about Typhoon/F-35, but making submarines is seen to be an even more strategic capability.
@Mark
“First and foremost trident is a weapon of national defense and IMO should be considered as part of defense budget.”
Interesting. I view the nuclear deterrent as strategic, along with other political objectives, including basics such as healthcare, education and infrastructure.
They all contribute to the long term safety and progression of the nation.
As such, happy for the defence budget to include the operation of the deterrent, but always of the opinion that Treasury should cover the capital costs.
@Repulse
“Can anyone ever see us using nuclear weapons and the US not”
Yes. But then my Crystal Ball is as clear about the future as yours. :p
More live in Barrow than belong to the Liberal Democratic Party.
@El Sid
“C4 vs D5 partly comes down to whether you just want to chip bits off Moscow or flatten it completely.”
If we’re only going to buy a few of them then they may as well be the really good ones.
“If we don’t make Successor here then we’re pretty much saying goodbye to domestic manufacture of submarines.”
Which in itself is pretty unacceptable, the whole “Submarines are the new Capital Ships” line and all.
@TOC – I’m with you on funding the deterrent; of course the obvious solution is to increase the defence budget by £25 billion. Sorted.
Don’t want to rehash the comments from the open thread discussion; suffice to say we CAN afford Trident or its replacement AND stronger conventional forces. It’s not the money that’s lacking, it’s the political will to channel the nation’s wealth into the proper areas.
Happy to agree.
Unhappy to report there is no sign of it happening.
Not really adding to the debate as such, but I remember hearing, and I think it was from (name-drop alert!) Malcolm Rifkind (remember him?), that Trident was the last major government project to be delivered within schedule AND under budget.
@ Mycomen
That is true.
El Sid said: “…The big problem with Tomahawks is that they get shot down by any half-competent enemy…”
Well, that’s TLAM… There must still be room for the stealth cruise missile though? If not then why on Earth are we bothering with Astute and Storm Shadow if a half-competent enemy (anyone with a jet fighter) can shoot them down?
I hate to dredge up old arguments but there are some serious inconsistencies in the views expressed here (not you El Sid, not having a go at anyone in particular)… Either TLAM has a use or it can be shot down by a “half-competent enemy”. Either Storm Shadow has a use or it can be shot down by a “half-competent enemy”.
Tell me which cruise missiles CANNOT be shot down by a half-decent enemy, then build them, then make them nuclear tipped. Job done! Alternatively, tell me any cruise missile is useless and stop building Astutes, investing in Storm Shadow on Typhoon and give me a CATOBAR carrier with proper long-range, nuclear-armed low-observable jets.
Thanks for your anti-TLAM-N link TD but it seems to be about old technology and poor accuracy, not anti cruise missiles in general.
The point is that warheads delivered ballistically are the extremely difficult verging on the near impossible to shoot down.
TLAM-N came about in the mad bad days of the Cold War where everything came with a nuclear option and each side developed systems to match. If the Soviets had fitted carrier pigeons with nuclear hand grades the US would have fitted carrier pigeons with nuclear hand grenades.
Trident gives the ability to hit all potential enemies. The SSBN patrols waters that are known (not for nothing does the RN invest heavily in hydrography) and that can have defences concentrated on them if needed. These waters are long way from the emerging potential major threat, China.
@APATS – The golf turned out well didn’t it :-D
Off topic – bah humbug!
Not sure where this idea has come from that TLAM are so easy to shoot down? From the “Gulf War Air Power Survey Summary Report” by Keaney and Cohen (of the 1991 Iraq war):
— “During the war, 297 Tomahawks were fired, of which 282 began their mission successfully (9 failed to leave the tube and 6 fell into the water after leaving the tube). At least 2 (and possibly as many as 6) were shot down, most or all of them in a single quickly arranged stream attack (the missiles had to fly a single mission profile most of the way to their target).”
Or in other words, even if we take the worst case scenario you’re looking at less than a 2% shoot down rate. Keeping in mind that TLAM were used in the day for the most part. At the time Iraq had a modern and well constructed air defence network.
Pilots of conventional aircraft were kept away from Baghdad for the most part due to the high concentration of SAM’s and AAA batteries (damn you Duracell!). The few conventional attacks by F-16’s resulted in losses and many aircraft were driven to ditch their bombs and fuel tanks. There’s a good report somewhere if you Google it featuring interviews with some of the pilots.
TLAM’s snaked through this same heavily defended environment to hit their targets with very high levels of survivability. They’ve also been used with very high success rates in a number of other conflicts.
So where did this idea about their vulnerability come from? People are talking like TLAM are no more survivable than hot air ballons floating slowly over Hanoi during Vietnam. The current reality is the exact opposite.
Great piece TD. Perfectly explains why trident is the most effective way of having a nuclear deterrent and why its still needed. As for 3 or 4 boats, as long as we can maintain one on patrol at all times it doesn’t really matter.
“Don’t want to rehash the comments from the open thread discussion; suffice to say we CAN afford Trident or its replacement AND stronger conventional forces. It’s not the money that’s lacking, it’s the political will to channel the nation’s wealth into the proper areas.”
Completely agree with this statement WiseApe, Doesnt help when you have politicians saying things such as this about the NHS “FREE TO ALL.” Sorry I didn’t realise that the government waved it’s magic wand to maintain the public services, how silly of me to think we had to pay for them.
@Chris B
The problem with TLAM-N is the the reduced range gives the enemy a much smaller area for it to search for a submarine. Also cruise missiles have become a major part of modern warfare and therefore this will massively increase the incentive to develop counter measures in the future.
@ Mick 346,
“The problem with TLAM-N is the the reduced range gives the enemy a much smaller area for it to search for a submarine. Also cruise missiles have become a major part of modern warfare and therefore this will massively increase the incentive to develop counter measures in the future.”
Still 1000 miles isn’t bad. The Baltic Sea alone covers some 146,000 square miles.
I’d imagine too that as defence against cruise missiles improve, the missiles themselves will improve.
@Chris
The other factor to the equation is that TLAMs are best countered by aircraft, during the Gulf War, the Iraqi air force was rendered totally ineffectual by massed Coalition air power, a situation that, while ideal, cannot be garunteed for all wars.
There is also the fact that TLAMs and aircraft usages are totally different, people are much more wary of losing lives than missiles, which means that you can use Tomahawks in really crazy flight patterns, like the one where a journalist was looking out his 3rd floor hotel window when a Tommahawk went by and turned the corner to hit something further up the street. I’d love to see the pilot who flies 30 feet above ground in a residential area.
A bit off point, but key message is that aircraft and missiles are different systems and are weaker to different things. Aircraft, if intercepted by air, can at least dogfight it out, but have a bit more trouble sneaking by ground defences in NOE flying. Cruise missile excel in NOE flying, but if detected by aircraft, that’s mostly it for them.
As for SSGNs.. I wonder if Korea, Australia or Taiwan would be interested in a joint project *cough..cough..gag…neeed to washhh mouth!!..* with cost sharing. With the amount of sabre rattling China’s been doing, people here are getting nervous and are reaching for any equalizer they can get.
@El Sid. I personally do not feel that killing the SSBN option is the “bugger barrow” option. Putting nuclear weapons aside for a minute, SSNs are major strategic assets which have as much relevance with or without Trident. The fact there will only be 7 SSNs, and 40% of the overall fleet being tied up for CASD is nonsense.
I am an advocate for tactical nuclear weapons rather than WMD Trident (or replacement). A supersonic nuclear cruise missile capable from being fired from a SSN, warship, vehicle or F35B (even Typhoon) would give us many more options and our potential foes more reasons to stop and think.
The assets would be useful in conventional war as well as Armageddon – which in a time of limited cash is the best of both worlds.
Lastly, I do not have a problem in keeping these weapons locked in a few cupboards spread over the country and monitored by the UN.
El Sid
I was trying to say that C4 is a good option for the RN , but ONLY if the USN goes back to it as well.
If the political choice is for big bomber subs, then stay with D5 (or E6).
If the cost effective option is a stretched Virginia or Astute then C4 is easier to fit.
C4 & D5 would both be fitted with the same number & megatonnage of warheads so the point about chipping or flattening Moscow makes no sense. Neither missile is fully loaded out.
Do we think the UK might be able to push through a reduction or change in our Nuclear stance as a broader move with other power’s.
Maybe I am dreaming but the ideal would be for each of us to keep a certain number of weapons under lock and key with a UN inspector monitoring them. As soon as some one pulls their’s out then everyone else can do the same. If we coupled that with some form of very crippling automatic sanction’s (with no UN veto) for the first to raid the cupboard then it would be a decent system for making sure no one cheated.
I know it sounds like madness today but 20 years ago the thought of the UK having less than 100 weapons and 24 missiles with Russia and China in the WTO would have seemed mad. Now its very much what we are moving toward’s. The US having 6,000 weapons with around 1500 active seems insane to me in the current environment.
We might spend billion’s on building a new system that never actually goes into service if the threat environment reduces further.
While we are financially f**ked we have to remember the rest of the world is in a similar state or worse. Russia and China don’t look too healthy and do they really want to invest 100’s of billions in maintaining their arsenal’s.
Its obviously a Lib Dem wet dream but it does not mean it’s a bad idea. Maybe it would be worth the UK proposing. How do we think other powers would react?
I know Regan and Gorbachev suggested 100 missile each and it was seriously considered by both until Regan refused to cancel SDI.
Not currently carrying a full quantity of missiles and not currently fully arming a delivery vehicle with warheads is no argument.
That’s now, during peacetime.
If a situation escalates those tubes will be fully filled, available warheads armed and even any additionally available Vanguard’s put to sea.
I don’t know how you’d feel, but I’d be more scared of an opponent with a few D6’s that they can hit me with from practically anywhere in the world rather than more C4 derivatives.
Our current assets of D5 equipped subs means we can park a single V-boat in the Indian Ocean and it can strike anywhere from Argentina across the Middle East, parts of Russia, to China and North Korea.
D5 radius on map. Expand the “Map Options” section below the blue bar and click the “Zoom to fit map” button if the map doesn’t display correctly first time.
When I was doing my Masters I did come across an argument that a nuclear deterrent only required 100 nuclear weapons (1 MT I think…) – the same IR thinker ( well respected Realist but can’t remember his name at the moment… Getting old) dropped the number to 6; as long as efforts were taken to safeguard them and their second strike ability. So lots of decoy launchers, decoy warheads, decoys with the real reentry vehicles, etc. Unless the enemy could guarantee the destruction of all 6 a first strike would be too risky.
@ Swimming Trunks
Not much difference between the damage caused by 475kiloton Trident warhead and 1Megaton warhead.
This is a better tool.
http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/
Try dropping the 100 mt Tzar Bomba on London. Not much left of the SE. MAybe we just build one of these on top of a Saturn V and we are done.
@ Martin
Nuclear weapons are cheap. Without them post-WW2 Western Europe would have been an armed camp. Conscription wouldn’t have ended. And weapons procurement would have impacted heavily on the economy. You can’t hate the bomb on one hand, and then reap the benefits of a Western consumer life style on the other hand. Beef for Sunday and nukes, or cabbage soup and living in a country geared to fight WW3. Nations have defence forces because the other can’t be trusted. War isn’t a game. Conventions, treaties, and international law governing war are only adhered to because states choose to adhere to them for their own convenience. Devastating wars aren’t just stories in history books. Just because we are safe now doesn’t mean we will be safe in the future. Nuclear weapons are terrible things. But to an individual so is having 5in of steel shoved into their belly. Or drowning because a torpedo hits their submarine. Nuclear weapons at the end of the day are just another system. Believing our tiny conventional forces are flawed because of the purchase of nuclear weapons is a fallacy. Our conventional forces at the height of the Cold War with every body armed to the teeth with nukes were in real terms just as small, just as ineffective, speed bumps on the road to Armageddon. I would humbly suggest you do some reading and gain some perspective.
x,
“…The point is that warheads delivered ballistically are extremely difficult verging on the near impossible to shoot down…”
The points:
1. Isn’t Aster30 supposed to be able to destroy a ballistic warhead?
2. If ballistic warheads are near impossible to shoot down why don’t we use them for conventional warheads?
Swimming Trunks,
“…so lots of decoy launchers, decoy warheads, decoys with the real reentry vehicles, etc. Unless the enemy could guarantee the destruction of all 6 a first strike would be too risky…”
I like it… lots of decoys… like having lots of cruise missiles on Astute, Daring, and QE (some of which are nuclear)… Suddenly you have the whole fleet acting as the deterrent.
Aster 30 Block II is set up to counter SRBM/MRBM missiles (“Theatre” Ballistic Missiles).
Aster 45 was meant for anti ATBM/ICBM duty but I’ve lost track of development since MEADS and ALTBMD hit the scene, so if anyone has any more info…
Maybe the 30 Block II series is considered sufficient as it’s being proposed for the “upper layer of NATO ALTBMD”?
Hi, Observer.
“…you can use Tomahawks in really crazy flight patterns, like the one where a journalist was looking out his 3rd floor hotel window when a Tommahawk went by and turned the corner to hit something further up the street. I’d love to see the pilot who flies 30 feet above ground in a residential area.”
You could just shoot it down with a MANPADS. Once it was realized that TLAM were following highways, journalists were anticipating the routes of Tomahawks and waiting for them with cameras. Not beyond a competent enemy to deploy some missiles on entry routes or around key targets.
———
Hi, John Hartley.
“C4 & D5 would both be fitted with the same number & megatonnage of warheads so the point about chipping or flattening Moscow makes no sense. Neither missile is fully loaded out.”
Maximum range will be affected by the weight of warheads and decoys carried. I’d expect there to be different planning assumptions made between the use of Trident I & II.
Damn I forget to add “warheads travelling at hypersonic speeds”……..
“Once it was realized that TLAM were following highways…”
TomTomTomahawks?
That nuclearsecrecy tool is quite interesting, x. I should be just about ok if we get a 0.5kt detonation in the centre of town; but if ‘they’ target the local government district, that swings things my way.
Going to whitewash the windows just in case.
@ Brian Black re local authorities and nuclear war
The conurbation to my east declared itself a nuclear free zone and actually got fined by Westminster for not having a bunker. Funnily enough the place where they said their supposed bunker was to be found was under their nearly near office block which sat roughly at the geographic centre of authority which would have been ground zero for the Soviet attack of 1 x 1 megaton warhead and 2 x 500kiloton free fall bombs. It was like some sort of Baldrick-like cunning plan……
@ X
Funnily enough I have read quite heavily and I am a student of history. While the bomb made sense in the post 1945 world and was a cheaper alternative to massive conventional forces it does not necessarily make sense today.
War has been and always will be about gain. The modern macroeconomic environment all but prohibits large scale war. For a 1939 style event a country would have to leave the current international trade set up and I just don’t see anyone doing that. The cost would be enormous so the prize would have to be equally as great. Saudi Arabia is about the only thing that springs to mind.
Could you come up with a scenario where this might happen? China would be the only nation sufficiently large enough to pose a threat and not sure if you have looked at a map but it’s pretty far away.
You keep referring to our conventional forces as a waste of time. However even if it was just us with no European or American help (which hardly seems likely) I think our forces would be able to cause the Chinese some major headaches if they tried to move west.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TPHQ2GFxMw&feature=related
Woosh……..
Martin said “The modern macroeconomic environment all but prohibits large scale war.”
Man is still man.
x,
Okay, a Mach 12 impact from a MaRV is cause for concern! Sending up something with “piff-paff” seems so very… well… French ;-)
Martin,
Isn’t revenge another historical reason for war? Hardly much in the way of “gain” in that one other than feeling chuffed to bits that you’ve got even.
What “gain” were the Crusades after?
@ X – with all your cynical high handed answers you are in danger of becoming Red Trouser mk 2.
@ Martin
It isn’t high handed. Global commercialism isn’t new; the world has been interconnected for a long time. We traded with Germany before WW1. We shared the same family. In many ways we close to Germany than to France. Didn’t stop war breaking out. Today in China Japanese business are closed because of a dispute over some islands. The more of us there are and the fewer the resources the more chance of armed conflict breaking out. Somebody having a different religion, skin colour, or political view are all causes for war. War is war. Saying that one paradigm existing in one sphere overrides all others is not enough. If large scale conflict can be stopped it means small scale conflict can be stopped. And I have yet to see any evidence of that happening.
@ Simon – The Crusades had a lot of social economic military rational behind them. It does not make sense today but it did then. Europe was a wash with mercenaries and knights who had been created to defend against the Vikings. With that threat gone they had little to do but butcher there own people. Made sense to give them something to do. The encroach of Islam worried the Catholic Church and the prize of the Holly Land and ever lasting salvation was very appealing back then. A Feudal system allows for wars that maybe don’t make sense by modern standards. One man alone can call for them. However a capitalist system plugged in to every other economy in the world to the extent that a couple of Greeks not paying the tax bills can knock even China into a deep recession or depression really prohibits large-scale state on state warfare. The market dropped in half in 2003 when we invaded Iraq which was a relatively minor affair by historical standards. What would happen if Russia (not that it could) tried to invade Western Europe? What would happen if China made a play for South East Asia. The ramifications in the domestic economy would be enormous. Especially in nations like China and Russia that are barely keeping it together as it is with strong economic growth.
If say China is going to do a Japanese 1941 attack any where its first of all going to have to figure out some new way to feed 1.2 billion people with out imports and come up with a magic new source of energy that can run its economy with out oil. It will also have to ask for a refund on its $3 trillion currency reserves long before it kicks off.
I am not saying the world is a safe place. I would like to keep the current and future deterrent. But if that means butchering the conventional forces then I feel we need to look for a cheaper alternative. I could not stand for a Lib Dem style unilateral disarmament but Nuclear Weapon’s make little military sense in the modern world. Maybe its the right time to start having the disarmament debate with the other UNSC member’s. They may be more willing than we think if properly engaged.
As X says man is still man. However we are no longer Barbarian’s. We have and still are evolving. What was acceptable to our Grandparents generation seems abhorrent today. Probably even to the Chinese and Russian’s. Maybe the political solution they found in MAD is not the best way to progress at the end of the 21st Century which is the period of time Trident successor is likely to serve until.
We have created highly effective monitoring and disarmament procedures in the past. We have the ability if not to stuff the nuclear genie back in the bottle at least get the lid back on.
@ X – People have been trading since the dawn of time and its never prevented a war. There is a bid difference between trading and complete economic interconectivity. Global war now (take away the threat of Nuclear Weapons) would be far more like civil war. How many advanced industrialised economy’s have done that?
@martin
Twain is accredited with saying “History may not repeat itself, but it sure does rhyme”.
Two to three generations after the horror of the Napoleonic Wars, which left Britain as the dominant power for the best part of century, the World was ready to flex its muscles again and have another showdown.
We’ve lost our last direct connection to WWI in the last few years. We’re rapidly running out of direct connections to WWII (which incidentally left the USA as the dominant power for best part of century, seeing the patterns?).
Do you really believe that everyone in the world has learned the lessons? It only takes one bully in the playground to cause a whole world of hurt.
The majority of the world do not have access to an educational system that will continue to pass on the cultural lessons learned from such conflicts, even our own educational system will struggle to persuade our own kids not to engage in a conflict that will escalate into a Total War scenario, and we consider ourselves able to understand the lessons. Ask yourself, are we being arrogant in this belief?
In addition, the majority of the world do not have a culture or system of government that accepts and promotes anything but a single proselytized view and they find it difficult to handle alternative, or just plain inflammatory, views that you or I enjoy the freedom to safely ignore or debate.
If you truly believe there will not be another major global conflict in the next 100 years, then I regretfully suggest you are being naive in this specific regard.
We are lucky in that we have been enjoying a relatively short period of “low intensity” conflict. Short by historical measures. We have been able to afford to let our military shrink.
However we need to maintain the ability to manufacture the tools that our kids may have to use in the future. If we’re going to have a 3 or 4 SSBN’s, or 8-12 SSGBN’s, or whatever, then they need to be bloomin’ good ones.
This is so that in the unfortunate scenario that we need to build more, we end up with an entire fleet of bloomin’ good ones.
I do not want to be the only kid in the playground after school without a cricket bat. I certainly want my grandchildren to be able to live in a high GDP society with healthcare, quality of life and maybe a little less “reality TV” broadcast from the Geordie neck of the woods.
The difference between our viewpoints is I truly hope that I am the one who is wrong.
I am still trying to get my head around the idea that we are more civilised today than a hundred years ago……
http://indrus.in/articles/2012/10/01/yuri_dolgoruky_new_generation_nuke_sub_ready_for_commissioning_18007.html
@x
Just have to look at the evidence for the need to regulate any industry (banking, childcare, whatever).
If we were civilised, why would we need appoint our brothers keepers?
@ TOC
Legislation is not a synonym for civilisation. Is legislation your only metric for civilisation? Can you offer up any others? Social? Moral? Intellectual?
You see I have been at the wrong end of one these debates once with a Medievalist.
Your grandparents may rattled on about the good old days. The good old days when kids had rickets. When families were brought up on next to nothing. You could say use legislation as an objective measure. That the grandparents’ view is wholly subjective. But lets take another metric. What about education? How many 11 year olds have the reading age of an 11 year old today? How many are numerate? How many can spell? What about morally? Are we saying rising number of teenage pregnancies indicates rising levels of civilisation? The number of single parents households is a good thing? What about manners? What about debt? If your answer is that all ages have their ills then all ages have their good points too. So to say 2012 is more civilised then 1912 isn’t strictly true, is it? Because in some ways, in many ways, 1912 was a better place to live than 2012. And in some ways, many ways, 2012 and 1912, in terms of history are mere blink apart.
@ The Other Chris
However we need to maintain the ability to manufacture the tools that our kids may have to use in the future. If we’re going to have a 3 or 4 SSBN’s, or 8-12 SSGBN’s, or whatever, then they need to be bloomin’ good ones.
The current policy may leave our Children with SSBN’s possibly even the ability to build more. But it won’t leave them with much of anything else. How do you stop a bully if your only option is instant sunshine? At what point do you switch it on if you know they can do the same to you?
@ X
110 years ago we locked up a large proportion of the South African population for nothing more than wanting to remain independent. Subsequently we let 28,000 of them die (including 22,000 children).
67 years ago my grandfather use to strap himself into a Lancaster and drop enough bomb’s on German cities to kill 100,000 civilians in a night.
64 years ago we took a group of Malaysian villagers out into the woods and shot them for being suspected communists and no one was held to account.
Today if we fire a missile at a terrorists house and accidentally kill a few by stander’s its front page news and people are held up as war criminals. Seems like the guy’s in the stan can’t take a dump without a lawyer on the phone.
That trend suggests to me we are becoming more civilized. What trend have you observed over the past 100 years?
For once I am lost for words. I just don’t know where to begin to address such a simplistic, one dimensional measure, of what civilisation means. I agree the South African concentration camps may not be the Empire’s finest moment. But what about the mass immunisation program that eliminated smallpox during the colonial era. As for your grandfather in his bomber, well that is the scale of industrial war. I am sure there are a good number in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan who despise the West for the amount of ordnance dropped on their respective countries. Death is death. Unless you think death by drone and JDAM is somehow better. As for the Malaysians, there are many occurrences of unnecessary deaths through out history. You are naive.
If “civilisation” is measured by the lack of innocent people getting embroiled in conflict then I’d suggest we are less civilised than in ancient times.
It seems regardless of laws, rules and technology we are more adept at killing innocent people than ever before.
Martin, You pretty much sum up why Churchill said
“We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm”
Though a version of the quote is claimed by George Orwell.
The “Western” nations may becoming more civilised but we live in a world where people fly airliners into buildings and blow themselves up. When their only intention is to maximise civilian casualties.
“But it won’t leave them with much of anything else.”
Utter crap. £25b is pocket change.
Maybe not to you or I. To a government this is loose change behind the sofa cushions. We’re talking £1.5b a year over the development and build cycle of the project.
The recession we’re in has left the country 14% worse off than just before the sub-prime crisis hit…
…that’s still 46% better off than we were ten years prior in 1997.
Don’t believe me?
The austerity we’re in is about rebalancing our labour force from 33% public sector down to 28% public sector last year.
Public sector workers do not directly contribute to the economy, their value to the public must be weighed in the secondary effects category such as their market enabling factors or vital public services.
Arguably we need to dip lower than a 28% public sector workforce.
You’re asking for an extra £25b spread out over 20 years development and build cycle from a government income that generates 35% revenue from a GDP of £1.5 trillion each year.
£1.5b a year… We’d claw back £0.5b of sovereign spend per annum in taxation and secondary fees!
We’re not even talking about the “four jobs per manufacturing job” yet.
This isn’t a “cannot afford it” question. We place a squeeze on the defence budget because we choose to. Not because there’s not enough cash around.
@APATS
Well said, Sir.
@Simon
“If ballistic warheads are near impossible to shoot down why don’t we use them for conventional warheads?”
1) More expensive
2) People might think it’s a nuke and pop their entire arsenel at you thinking it’s a preemptive, which leads you to pop a lot back at him et al.
3) China is planning to do just that using SRBMs against US carriers that get too close.
@martin
It’s not the rational, moneyminded enemy that you had to be most afraid of, it’s the irrational one. You just don’t know what that loon is going to do. Think of how often the Muslims bring up the Crusades as an excuse to kill Westerners, or how often China brings up the Manchuria incident and Nanking or how Germany went a bit rabid after WWI. Even then, rationalists have been pushed to war, like Japan and the US embargo that led to war.
And as a very scary POV, yes, a country would have to leave it’s current global economic status to go on a war. In a major recession that most people see as being caused by a globalized economy? Isn’t this the most likely time this is going to happen? The old “Waving the bloody Shirt” works incredibly well to solidify local control, and the old “Mugging on an International Scale” works well too to stabilize local economy. In fact, I currently suspect the first is part of the reason why China’s been so aggressive lately, and maybe part of the second for the Spratleys.
Lots of factors can lead to war, especially emotional ones. Very hard to simply just say “It’ll never happen.”
As an aside, if we only manage to keep government pension plans stable at current levels then in the same 20 year period we’re planning to spend £25b over (and I believe we’ve already started) our total pension spend (without inflation) will be:
£2.4 Trillion.
“It seems regardless of laws, rules and technology we are more adept at killing innocent people than ever before.”
No. Innocents have always died in large numbers.
x,
I suppose one would have to look at innocent:military:population ratios rather than numbers since more people live today than have lived in the entire history of mankind before… or something like that.
I think one would find it’s getting worse as our killing efficiency has increased. I have no numbers to hand but ~25 million (~14%) Russians in WW2 is going to be difficult to top.
TOC,
Estimated £100b over 30 years is about £3b per year and on its own this is not a lot. But the pit of money is not bottomless. It’s all about spending priorities.
“Opportunity Costs” is what I remember learning in Economics.
@ The Other Chris
Utter crap. £25b is pocket change.
To HMG total budget I agree. To the MOD budget it’s devastating. I am sorry to be the bearer of bad news. Much as I don’t agree with the decision its already been made. It’s highly unlikely to be reversed. X has already said he’s happy with nothing more than Trident mk2, QRA and Special forces. I think we need more of an armed force than that.
What are you prepared to see going from the MOD budget to pay for it? Because that’s the choice not cutting DFID, welfare, the NHS or any of the other 100 things that should be cut.
@ Observer
“Lots of factors can lead to war, especially emotional ones. Very hard to simply just say “It’ll never happen.”
I agree but any potential enemy country has to be credible. They have to have hundreds of millions of citizens, advanced weaponry and economy capable of building hundreds of ship’s, thousands of planes and millions of vehicles. If they don’t have these things they are not really a threat. They may be an inconvenience but not something worthy of a deterrent like Trident.
Such entities do not form overnight. There is only one country possibly two than could conceivably fit the bill, China and Russia. Neither seems particularly credible to me as a direct threat to the UK. Russia is too weak and China too far away. If I was Taiwan or the Philippines I would probably be bricking it right now and building as much instant sunshine as I could but I am not.
I am not advocating disarmament. I think the world is full of many dangers and we need a strong credible force to deal with it. My point is simply this. To pay for trident we will have to gut the conventional forces. I did not make that call it was Osborne. I don’t agree with it but then I rarely agree with the rain. My agreement makes little difference.
While the deterrent was a highly effective tool to stop the Soviets invading Western Europe it offers little deterrent to say China invading Taiwan etc etc.
We would never use Nuclear Weapons against China in this circumstance. They know it as do we. What would likely deter them is a large international naval force blowing the hell out of the invasion force and preventing any shipments of oil food etc etc reaching their ports.
If we lose conventional capability as most of you are in essence advocating then we lose the ability to prevent war. If all we are left with is the Nuclear option then things might just get out of control.
@ Simon
It would be far too expensive now a days to kill 25 million Russian’s. Think of the paper work alone :-)
@ Simon
Everything in proportion. What you have to remember is back when we were uncivilised many battles were conducted to quite strict rules. They even agreed a kick off time. Now we are more civilised sometimes we are sneaky and don’t tell the enemy what we are doing….. :)
There is an awful lot of talk on here that Conventional forces will be raped to pay for a Trident replacement but if that is the case then an awful lot of projects that have had a lot of money spent on them will be cancelled.
A few points to remember that we are planning on building 3 or 4 submarines, not designing a new missile system.. We already operate such a system.
The command systems and sonar etc will be carried across from the latest update on the Astute boats. The CMC will be in line with the US design.
The cost will be spread across many years.
Their are other projects that have long lead items ordered as well. The idea that a Trident replacement project will see conventional forces cut beyond FF2020 planning levels is used to attempt to influence the public by those with a purely political agenda.
But nuclear bombs are dead expensive. We will have to shut hospitals and schools, increase rail fares 2000% even though we will have to shut the railways down, and have £1.10 in the pound tax for everybody even the dead. Honest we will…..
It isn’t the rhubarb talk about cutting conventional forces that annoys. More the middle class here who have done well off the West’s post-WW2 minimal defence spending shrieking like a load of schoolgirls at the evil bomb. They would have been crying if the West had been armed to Soviet levels and if that to have done a few years in uniform instead of getting pissed in the SU. Shower custard. :)
In the early 1980s, UK defence spending was 5.5% GDP even though we were in a recession. Now we struggle to find 2%, yet there is no shortage of money for NHS tourists, diversity, climate change, facilitator non-jobs, EU contributions & DfID. Or £5000 an hour consultants.
Re deterrent. 3 obvious options. Take your pick.
Trident II D5 or E6. If you are willing to fund a new class of large SSBN then fine.
If not, then a new Trident I C4 (E4) would fit in a stretched Virginia or Astute much easier. Probably no more than 5 warheads per missile now, so no strain on a missile designed for 8, or 14 on D5.
Finally, back to V force. Abandon SSBN & use the money to buy US next gen bomber LRS-B. Ideal weapon launched by it would be updated Skybolt. Todays guidance & computers would not have the issues of the original Skybolt. LRS-B would serve dual role (nuclear/conventional) strike.
@TOC – “Public sector workers do not directly contribute to the economy” – you wound me!
@Simon – “we are more adept at killing innocent people than ever before” – Genghis Khan would beg to differ.
@APATS – “The idea that a Trident replacement project will see conventional forces cut beyond FF2020 planning levels is used to attempt to influence the public by those with a purely political agenda.” – So why has it been dumped solely on the defence budget then?
@John Hartley – but would the US sell us their bomber?
Wise Ape
One reason may be that any funding it receives can then be credited as increased defence spending. Both sides play Politics with defence.
Wiseape
If the Americans will sell the UK Trident , Tomahawk & Airseeker, I think it likely they would sell LRS-B. If the fiscal cliff is coming & they need to protect it, then a foreign sale to a trusted ally, might spare it from cancellation.
I do not agree that cancelling the deterrent would boost conventional defence. That money would go to £5000 an hour consultants, duck houses, third world dictators & propping up the Euro.
x,
“…They even agreed a kick off time…”
I thought the “kick off” was only implied by the yelling and charge of the front line of sword wavers ;-)
Interesting list at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_anthropogenic_disasters_by_death_toll… China are really going to have to work on their anger!
“The modern macroeconomic environment all but prohibits large scale war.”
Hmmmm. Sounds familiar.
We’re all three square meals away from chaos. Never forget it. Once danger beckons our cost benefit calculations and manner of thinking change dramatically. It’s human nature – the inner savage never goes away it just sleeps whilst it’s gorged on western plenty.
@WiseApe
Re: Public Sector Workers
Heh heh, clearly all slackers! I clearly owe you a pint in recompense.
@martin
“I am sorry to be the bearer of bad news.”
Kindly stow the glibness and bear accurate news.
The successor project will be funded, once agreed by Parliament [1].
Remember it has to have at least a 10-year planned sustainable programme [2] for additional capital to be approved by Treasury and released to the MOD. Note particularly the difference in how the MOD’s programs are described as committed, paraphrasing as “£160m on new equipment and data systems over the next 10 years”, compared to past PR’s.
To quote:
“We will not commit to a project until it needs to be committed to ensure delivery on time… We also won’t commit to any projects without a 10-year budget line to cover not just procurement, but support costs.”
As with any program if you can demonstrate you are likely to be on time, in budget and deliver the promised benefits then the project will likely be approved.
This isn’t your fathers MOD where you need to spend a fixed budget each year or risk losing it the next. Very 80s corporate style of doing things. Welcome to the scary new world of MOD budgetary control with overlapping approved programs and committed funds.
Oh, and successor is on the way:
“The plan includes… and successor nuclear submarines.”
Though I’ll leave you guys to debate if that means V-boat successor, A-boat successor or a Fighter-Bomber SSGBN-X.
[1] The Future of the United Kingdom’s Nuclear Deterrent
[2] House of Commons debate 14th May 2012
I suppose that if we’re going to have a Trident replacement we should at least do it properly (CASD, 4 boats, etc).
I really do loath half-cocked defence.
If Trident is shifted to the MoD budget, without an equal raise in the defence budget then you’re going to have to start finding savings of around £1 billion per year out of a budget that is already under £40 billion. You’re not going to find that kind of saving by switching toilet paper providers.
Nor is it even worth talking about DfID or the EU. If we had the power I’m sure most of us would cut those things in a flash, along with a variety of other measures and there is certainly legs in a fantasy government type debate, but back in the real world this coalition has committed itself to remaining in the EU and spending a great deal of money on DiFD.
Now a question;
Let’s say that tomorrow we dispose of our nuclear weapons. The whole lot, not even a reserve stockpile for the future (if we do disarm I would hope that we would keep most of the warheads as a future “just in case”).
What actually changes?
When was the last time that Russia used its nuclear option as a threat towards say Sweden? Or Denmark? Or Poland? People talk about Iran. Why would Iran attack us and not Israel, or Saudi Arabia? What plans, what benefit would Pakistan or India see in attacking the UK? Why would China turn its weapons on us?
When was the last time someone threatened Brazil with attack? It’s a large nation, with a bigger economy than us (for now) and much greater natural resources (of which everyone anticipates a shortage), so why isn’t Brazil being bullied every which way by the various powers?
Why hasn’t China threatened to drop warheads on Greece unless it accepts austerity? The collapse of Greece, and with it the Euro, poses one of the greatest risks that China currently faces.
Hanoi was basically openly funding a major war against the US for several years. The US was worried about dropping conventional weapons on Hanoi, let alone nuclear ones. Because they might kill a few Russian advisors? Could any country nuke the UK without inadvertently killing US citizens, or indeed US military Personnel?
Interesting.
The cost of the Trident system may well be a drop in the ocean of overall government income, but unless and until TOC or x or whoever pulls off their coup, that fact is irrelevant. The defence budget is very constricted, and spending has to be strictly prioritized.
We’re developing a psychotic ‘Begbie’ defence posture, with just two reactions available… quietly seethe, destroy everything.
Bad guys can get up to a whole lot of mischief without having to consider the possibility of a nuclear response – no one nuked Baghdad when Iraq annexed Kuwait in 1990, for example. We need to plan for the real situations that we actually do come across time after time, we need to build capabilities from the bottom up, and we need some of our conventional assets to be of a sufficient mass as to constitute a strategic tool – otherwise, draw down our forces to a homeland defence force. No point buying ballistic nukes if you can’t then afford defensive missiles on a deployed frigate.
The cost of the Trident system may well be a drop in the ocean of overall government income, but unless and until TOC or x or whoever pulls off their coup, that fact is irrelevant. The defence budget is very constricted, and spending has to be strictly prioritized.
We’re developing a psychotic ‘Begbie’ defence posture, with just two reactions available… quietly seethe, destroy everything.
Bad guys can get up to a whole lot of mischief without having to consider the possibility of a nuclear response – no one nuked Baghdad when Iraq annexed Kuwait in 1990, for example. We need to plan for the real situations that we actually do come across time after time, we need to build capabilities from the bottom up, and we need some of our conventional assets to be of a sufficient mass as to constitute a strategic tool – otherwise, draw down our forces to a homeland defence force. No point buying ballistic nukes if you can’t then afford defensive missiles on a deployed frigate.
Chris B,
Very hard to prove a negative but.
The USSR did not rill across the German border nor into the Middle east.
A Strategic Nuclear Detterent and especially a guaranteed second strike weapon is the ultimate guarantor of UK Sovereignty.
The reason that bombs were falling on Hanoi rather than Hamburg was because of the Nuclear Option.
What changes? Our position and influence in the world.
Sticking your fingers in your ears and hoping nukes will go away is fantastical. As is building the whole straw man Russian argument. Our biggest nuclear worry is a little shit hole called Iran. But we don’t need 4 SSBNs to deter Iran. No we don’t, but we do need them to deter Russia or China from putting their foot down because they find it completely unacceptable that we have double standards when it comes to nuclear weapons and we’ve developed a propensity to ride roughshod over sovereignty.
You’d be a fool not to see how one tug on that Iran string moves an awful lot more than just Iran.
Its interesting all this talk about threats and so on to the UK and me must prepare for strategic shocks and changes and that means we need trident nothing else will do. that argument is like saying we must maintain the Army of the Rhine and RAF Germany the Russian may attempt to invade in 20 years time.
Japan does not have an expeditionary military they do have similar defense of there home islands issue that the UK does BUT with a much bigger threat. The have an actual tin pot rogue state with nuclear weapons which fires nuclear capable ballistic missiles over their home land on an infrequent but regular bases. They have the worlds biggest emerging nuclear armed super power which it gets cranky with on its door step and the russians just for gd measure. How with that on there door step they can accept they do not need a ssbn nuclear deterrent but we cant. How can they accept that a abmd capability based on ships and backed by the USA is a credible defence and we cannot.
In the end Im sure this trident replacement will go ahead we do not have politicians with the balls to lay out a different path in a cohesive way while explaining the risks and benefits it may bring but there is a case for it not to go ahead.
Wiseape the UK could have requested and would have received f22 a/c i see no reason why the next gen bomber program would be any different the problem being they cost about $500m each most likely much more and we cant afford such sums.
Mark,
The Japanese have massive, cultural, historical, legal and moral issues with Nuclear weapons. You cannot simply look at their geo strategic situation in isolation.
F22 is banned from export, look at the issues we have had with software codes for F35 and we have been involved in that project from the start.
The thought just occurred to me (been busy filling in my expenses claim forms ;-) ) – what sort of anti ballistic defence would £25 billion buy us?
@Mark – I’m pretty sure the US decided not to sell F22 to anyone – Australia and Japan also wanted them.
@BB
You’re not wrong. I wouldn’t expect a coup from me any day soon though, I’m not charismatic enough to persuade anyone to follow me anywhere!
Budget wise, rather than a fixed annual departmental budget at the MOD, we’re into committed funds territory and I don’t think Philip Hammond is getting the kudos he deserves on this business strategy.
Effectively what he’s agreed with Treasury is how much the MOD is going to spend over a long period of time. The 10 year target isn’t a plucked figure either, it ties in with UK Government Bonds with the 10 year bond having the cheapest yield for us (1.7% vs Italy and Spain around the 6% mark and France at 2.2%). This makes Treasury planning much easier and means funding the MOD’s requirements as cheap as possible.
To do this, he’s begun with the “current” annual budget spread over that period and fit as many programs as he can rely on to finish within that budget. If we go back and have a look at the programs canned since SDSR 2010 it’s unsurprising to find the ones that have the most uncertainty or the least Bang for Buck.
Examples:
– MRA4 (e.g. how many more airframe surprises would there be?);
– Harrier and Invincibles as an effective Seedcorn for F-35. Capability was ineffective and cheaper alternatives available;
– Reversion to STOVL on the CVF’s, highlighting that “designed for flexibility” doesn’t mean it’ll be cheap.
We’re left with a position where:
– We have a firm grasp on the next ten years expenditure;
– Treasury now knows what the expenditure in each of the years will be;
– Beyond the initial 10 years, some years will have less committed funds, others more. Very Important!;
– Treasury can sell bonds, if needed, in advance, and knows it will be at the cheapest rates;
– This has lead to Treasury feeling comfortable in setting aside a contingency fund;
– Treasury knows equipment needs to be replaced and can work with the MOD to fund the programs.
Very intelligent system of working, it’s very sympathetic to the Treasury’s problems. Proof of the pudding will be in the eating of course. None of us know if this will be followed in practice as there hasn’t been a new program approval and funding sought yet due to early days.
Aside: Quick note about the ongoing costs of the Successor Replacement. We’re already paying that Rent now with the current Vanguard/D5 system, it’s not additional.
WiseApe,
The US missile defence agency has cost nearly $150Bn to date, as a point of reference. At the current rates £25Bn would get us 5 years of that.
Except we don’t have a rocketry industrial base to work with.
@Mr fred – yes but I was suggesting we fund an actual programme, not a quango!
“Its interesting all this talk about threats and so on to the UK and me must prepare for strategic shocks and changes and that means we need trident nothing else will do. that argument is like saying we must maintain the Army of the Rhine and RAF Germany the Russian may attempt to invade in 20 years time”
If Russia had devoutly sworn that its aim was to conquer Germany and was actively and publicly pursuing a rearmament policy focused entirely on achieving that end then yes keeping BAOR would make sense.
Apas
Moral issues no doubt play a part but they still have a massive threat to there security and they don’t resort to the bomb.
F22 is now banned but I’m 99% certain aus and the uk would and did have an option at the begining of the program. Software code on f35 is really a very overblown issue. We had access to f117 and the senior year optical systems or varients there off long before it was ever known or officially acknowledged.
Hi, Mark. Is 500 million dollars for a bomber really such a problem when compared to the 11-14 billion (2006/07) pounds for the replacement SSBNs? Strategic bombers also provide a considerable conventional tactical capability whilst you’re waiting for WWIII.
Mark,
Japan does not resort to the bomb as it would split their society down the middle. It is not an option any Government there can take.
I am pretty sure we were never offered F22 but of course we were well into Typhoon at the time.
The F35 software issue certainly had a lot of Politicians and Senior Officers quite worried.
@ APATS,
“The USSR did not rill across the German border nor into the Middle east.” [sic]
— That rather presumes they intended to. They had the option in 1945 of pressing their attack further, with an air defence capability that would have challenged any potential nuclear bomber strike, and they elected not to.
“The reason that bombs were falling on Hanoi rather than Hamburg was because of the Nuclear Option.”
— The reason they were falling on Hanoi is because the US was involved in a war there, a war that was costing them some very heavy casualty figures. They had more than enough evidence to prove that Hanoi was actively supporting the insurgency and effectively waging war against the US, yet they opted not to deploy the ultimate weapon.
Frankly I don’t think any major power really believes it could get away with a first strike. If nuclear weapons are purely a guarantee against invasion then there are other, much cheaper, systems for preventing such an invasion with a burst of fusion power.
@ Phil,
“What changes? Our position and influence in the world”
— In what way? We retain our seat on the UNSC, as it cannot be taken from us. We still attend all the various G8 meetings, because of our economic power. Nuclear weapons only prevent people from invading our soil. As an offensive tool, a tool of intimidation and bargaining, they are of no use what so ever.
“Our biggest nuclear worry is a little shit hole called Iran”
— But it’s not just our worry, it’s the worlds worry. And even the Russians and Chinese realise that. It’s why Iran can’t get hold of the latest SAM systems, which Russia could very easily supply them with. And the last thing China wants is a closing of the Straits of Hormuz.
The Israeli’s meanwhile have much more to fear from a nuclear Iran. They themselves have weapons, so their SSBN fleet takes to the seas when? Oh right, they don’t have one. They have reacted to the problem with more subtle, diverse, low key means. They are in talks with Azerbaijan about using their soil as a launch pad (or potentially a recovery pad) for a strike, should they feel the need to go that route.
The US has enough firepower in nuclear terms to turn Iran into a virtual reflection of the moon, but their approach to handling Iran is more subtle too, and they’re heavily investing in theatre ABM systems.
There seems to be a lot of arguing over how the cost of trident means its either trident or a cut in conventional forces. But what happens if the Chiefs of staff decide not to fund replacement for trident out of the defence budget? Do we really believe that the politicians have no say in the matter? Then they either come out and say we’re having trident but losing conventional forces, politically going to look very bad. Or they decide to increase defence budget to cover the costs of trident. Unless they decide to go for complete disarmament which seems a non-starter. Also although its £25bn that’s not in today’s money right? That is spread over at least 25 years so that’s only £1bn a year(which may not even be in today’s money) for that amount of money what capability can we add to the conventional forces that will significantly increase their effectiveness?
Chris B
That rather presumes they intended to. They had the option in 1945 of pressing their attack further, with an air defence capability that would have challenged any potential nuclear bomber strike, and they elected not to.
Bear in mind they did not know how many bombs the US possessed, they would have been forced to defend on potentially 2 fronts.
Also would their Yak 1 and Yak 3 fighters have been a match for the F80s and Meteors and Vampires that were ready to enter service as well as the B29 delivery system. Or even the P51 already in service.
The Mig 15 incredible aircraft that it was did not enter service until a few years later and would not have benefited from UK jet expertise if we had been in a state of conflict.
The Israeli’s meanwhile have much more to fear from a nuclear Iran. They themselves have weapons, so their SSBN fleet takes to the seas when? Oh right, they don’t have one. They have reacted to the problem with more subtle, diverse, low key means.
They have Silos in the Negev desert, an air launched capability and very possibly a SSK cruise missile capability which given the range of their likely targets is more than sufficient. Combine this with the location of Israeli ports and it is very obvious why an SSBN solution is neither the optimal nor required solution.
@ APATS,
In all likelyhood the Russians probably could have sacrificied the Eastern front as not being vital while pressing a devastating offensive in the West. The reality is the Russia has never really been that keen on building an empire as much as it has been on building a protective wall of nations to stop its territory being invaded. The Warsaw Pact was no more than a Soviet dominated NATO.
Moving on,
“They [the Israeli’s] have Silos in the Negev desert, an air launched capability and very possibly a SSK cruise missile capability which given the range of their likely targets is more than sufficient”
Indeed, although the details of their program are still a little sketchy. They have still opted to face down a potential nuclear threat to their nation using non-nuclear means. And this is the Israeli’s we’re talking about here. People often talk about dictators who for the most part are all bluff. The Israeli’s have proven time and again that they’re all about the action and are probably more ruthless than any dictator in fighting for their country.
Yet they eschew the nuclear option, for now at least.
I wonder what it is we (the UK) would have to do to prompt a missile assault from one of the other powers? On current evidence it would appear to take something truly horrific, the kind of thing that no sane UK Prime Minister would ever order and that no sane military officer would ever follow through on.
Sticking with the Israeli example and cruise missiles, I was mistaken in thinking TLAM-N has a range of 1000 miles. That would appear to be the newer versions. The N-version has a range estimated at 1500 miles.
In our case then, you could practically hit St.Petersburg from just off the coast of Scotland. Or manoeuvre round to the North, pop one over the northern end of Norway and Sweden. At night, with multiple rounds on multiple paths I think we’d have an excellent chance of getting a shot away.
And who is going to put that to the test? Who is going to confidently assure their slightly worried commanders that all the TLAM will be detected and destroyed before they detonate a 150-200 kiloton warhead over the top of a Russian city?
We could couple that with a bomb based, perhaps Storm Shadow based weapon (the Yanks are sizing their bombs for the F-35 bomb bay and likely will continue the warhead sharing agreement they have in place now with many countries) that gives you a shorter range defensive option.
And Jesus, if we really want to stick absolutely to Trident then why not simply stick them in land silos? If the range listed is true (7,500 miles) then you can hit anywhere from Buenos Aires to Jakarta. The only Nations out of range would be Australia, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, and the sodding Christmas Islands.
@Simon
If ballistic warheads are near impossible to shoot down why don’t we use them for conventional warheads?
You may have heard of the V-2. And Scuds. And the Chinese DF-21D “carrier killer” that everyone has started wetting their pants about.
The reasons why the West has been slower to use them are varied. The main one is that you only go to the expense and hassle of ballistic missiles if you don’t fancy your chances of cruise missiles making it through the enemy air defence network. That’s been reality for the red team for some time, the blue team has only recently had to worry about it. And in general the West has rather neglected anti-surface missiles – the basic designs of Harpoon and Tomahawk date back to the 1970s – but has recently renewed interest with things like LRASM. Plus there’s the nuke/no-nuke confusion thing, and it’s easy to start bumping into the edges of international treaties.
Having said that, PGS represents a potential Western equivalent to the DF-21, fired from the Virginias.
@TD and others
I’m not going to get too much into the analysis of Tomahawk in GW1 thing – suffice it to say that the initial hype was not borne out by subsequent analysis, with sources suggesting that the Tomahawks “hit their intended targets slightly more than half the time” ( http://articles.latimes.com/1992-04-10/news/mn-203_1_gulf-war ) Obviously it’s not clear how many of those were shot down, or merely hit hard enough to push them off target. But it’s worth pointing out that although Iraq had a decent air defence system for its time, that time was over 20 years ago.
We all know how the main naval air defence system of the country with the third-biggest defence budget could not cope with Exocet cruise missiles in 1982 – Iraq will have had similar problems against Tomahawk. In particular defending against cruise missiles needs airborne radar with good clutter rejection, either AEW or fighters with LD/SD radar. Even the Soviet Union was only just getting that with the Mig-31 at the time of GW1, Iraq was some way behind. Whereas now the red team have had 20 years knowing that the first thing they will face during a war is a volley of Tomahawks – and have had time to organise their defences accordingly. Just having access to modern computers makes a big difference to your ability to discriminate low-flying missiles.
Obviously a country with primitive defences like Libya will still be vulnerable – but Tomahawk will be a lot less effective against middle-rank countries with modern defences, like many in the Middle East. Iran will make an interesting case, in some ways it’s quite sophisticated, but sanctions mean that it’s not had access to the best kit available on the export market like S-300, let alone the really good stuff that the superpowers keep to themselves. The fact that they use 1970s US fighters for AEW tells you something of where they’re at.
It’s also worth noting that conventional missile attacks are more tolerant of missiles not making it through – you can always come back the following day. Whereas if your instant sunshine doesn’t make it through, you may not have a country left the following day.
@WiseApe
what sort of anti ballistic defence would £25 billion buy us?
Actually £14bn in 2011 money. You could upgrade Sea Viper – but that would require R&D and not be guaranteed. Off the shelf, the state of the art in BMD is an Aegis ship with SM-3 Block 1B :
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-01/raytheon-sm-3-missile-fails-to-hit-target-in-pacific-test-1-.html
A Burke costs about £1.1bn plus running costs and 300 pensions, the missiles cost about £9m each.
Trouble is that BMD will never be the whole answer, as you can never guarantee that it will be 100% effective : http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/columnists/pavel-podvig/the-false-promise-of-missile-defense
On LRS-B – the crabs have expressed an interest in mebbe getting a squadron of them, and IIRC they even have someone in the programme office, but don’t quote me on that. Obviously cost is an issue – but that’s also true for the USAF, and they’re making loud noises about $550m being a hard limit – above that and capability gets cut. We’ll see.
@Chris.B.
The Baltic Sea alone covers some 146,000 square miles.
Sounds a lot, doesn’t it? But no sane navy would ever put an SSBN in the Baltic unless they really, really had to – it’s far too dangerous. The Baltic is too small and shallow, same with the Med to a large extent. There was a brief period when the Med was the front line of the submarine war, because Polaris didn’t have the range to hit central Russia from the Atlantic, and the Black Sea Fleet quite fancied their chances of getting the Polaris boats – they were a serious ASW force with big helicopter carriers etc. Then came Trident which could be launched from the Atlantic, which tipped the balance back in favour of the SSBN’s – as a general rule you won’t find them anywhere there’s continental shelf.
@Observer
The RAN won’t have anything to do with nukes, not even SSN/SSGN – at least not for the next two governments. It’s a really deep-seated thing for the Aussies, in the past I’ve compared it to the USN hosting free abortion clinics on its warships, there’s just no chance politically. Having said that, attitudes can change in time – for a long time the Japanese wouldn’t have a CVN forward-based there, but they came round in the end.
@ El Sid,
“… suffice it to say that the initial hype was not borne out by subsequent analysis, with sources suggesting that the Tomahawks “hit their intended targets slightly more than half the time”
— First, the analysis by Keaney and Cohen was produced in 1993 (after the LA Times article quoted) after having studied a more fully disclosed data set.
Secondly, missing the intended target is a very vague statement that has to be treated with caution in this context. If you fire a conventionally armed missile against a specific target and it hits the building across the street, that’s a problem. If you fire a nuclear tipped device at a specific point in a city it can miss by several blocks and it not be that much of an issue in the grand scheme of things.
Thirdly, I’d like to play a game with you.
So we’re sitting on opposite sides of a table and on that table are twenty shot glasses. In 19 of those shot glasses is a nice, healthy, good for the body and good for the soul shot of premium vodka. In one glass there is a mix of vodka and a very strong, fast acting poison.
All you have to do is drink ten of the 20. Live, and I’ll give you a million quid. Die and… well I’ll pay for your funeral, it’s the least I can do. Want to play?
What if I reduce the number. Just five shots. That’s all you have to do. Five shots for a million quid. Or death. But try not to think about the death part, focus on the million quid.
Ok, ok. Three shots?
Two?
One?
So I can probably fit twenty TLAM-N in an Astute, maybe a bit more and still leave a margin for torpedoes for self defence. Can you guarantee that you’ll get all twenty? What if I only fire ten? Can you guarantee that you’ll detect and successfully engage all ten?
The price of your failure is a blast at least ten times the size of the Hiroshima bombing, so 100,000 plus casualties is a low end estimate. St. Petersburg alone is home to what, 4? 4.5 million people? Brave man that takes that chance and pushes that button.
“Sounds a lot, doesn’t it? But no sane navy would ever put an SSBN in the Baltic unless they really, really had to – it’s far too dangerous”
— Minor point but we’re talking an SSN, minus the B.
It doesn’t have to go into the Baltic specifically, that’s just a starting point. We’ve got the whole North Sea essentially to play with, most of the English Channel along with a reasonable chunk of the Norwegian, Greenland and Barents Seas. We could be over by Iceland and still hit. Even the Adriatic or Aegean at a push.
Russian AEW radars have a range of about 200km against fighter sized targets. You have about 20 of these on the books, but the average Russian multi engine pilot gets something like 40 hours flying time a year.
I like my chances of getting 50% of my shots home at the very least. And I only really need to have the potential of getting one home to essentially stop any serious consideration of you trying anything.
@ The Other Chris
The successor project will be funded, once agreed by Parliament [1].
Remember it has to have at least a 10-year planned sustainable programme [2] for additional capital to be approved by Treasury and released to the MOD. Note particularly the difference in how the MOD’s programs are described as committed, paraphrasing as “£160m on new equipment and data systems over the next 10 years”, compared to past PR’s.
Obviously it will be funded. If it was not funded it will not happen. However the present plan is to fund it from the MOD’s equipment budget.
It’s easy for Phil the Spread sheet to talk about not committing to projects blah blah blah but We know that kit purchased by the forces only has a limited life time.
We know we will need to either replace or scrap a substantial amount of that kit in the next 20 year’s. Even if Trident is just £ 1 billion a year in today’s prices then we are talking around 15% of the total forces budget equipment budget for nearly two decades. Remember that £8 billion or so per annum is not just for buying new stuff. Most of it is for upgrade and maintenance of existing kit. Trident cost’s will prevent the MOD from committing to any new major project between 2016 to around 2030.
You may have faith that whoever comes in in 2015 will suddenly turn around and change things around, increase the MOD budget or simply pay for Trident itself. I just don’t foresee that. The UK has committed its self solely to spending the NATO minimum threshold of 2% of GDP on Defence. That’s around 10% less than the core budget at the moment. Adding in the Stan and Trident we spend over 2.5%. So we are likely to see more cuts in the future. Both directly by cutting the budget and indirectly by adding requirements like Trident into the core budget.
@Chris
Let’s play a different game. I get someone else to drink the 10 vodka, and you pay me a mil if he lives.
What makes you think the person calling the instant sunshine shot is going to be the one paying for it? And even if he did call the shot, it’s way too easy to media spin and wave the bloody shirt to turn the rest of the population rabid. Once you go nuclear, it’s for all the marbles or you’re just storing up trouble for yourself later.
And just as a strong point of clarification, Israel does have a nuclear option, one that may be even stronger than the UK. There were nasty rumours that they were building high radiation warheads, can’t quite remember the term for it. Started with Q I think, but even without the high end warheads they still have their Jerico missiles. The only reason they don’t have a sea based deterent is not that they don’t want one, it’s that it’s not appropriate for them, their sea control is much weaker than their land control, similar to their focus on the Army/Air Force at the expense of their Navy.
@El Sid
Forgot about that, the Kiwis and the Aussies wouldn’t have anything to do with nukes.
On a more interesting note, Asean countries are starting to feel paranoid about Iran and are trying to ween off fossil fuels. Don’t think too highly of them, it’s not for the environment, it’s to avoid having anyone getting a stranglehold on their economies. Big view now is on micro-nuclear reactors, the idea of doing a feasibility study in combination with a next-gen sub program might be a two for one deal that might appeal to some. How does this tie in with the Successor? You can always ask for a modular construction system, same ship type, but one built around a TASM VLCS, others built around a ballistic missile system. Might work, and there is the research cost sharing that’s so attractive.
And finally remembered the name of the radiation warhead, neutron bombs, or ERWs
Nuclear WMDs are always going to be a theoretical discussion until some loon get’s their hands on a button. Therefore, the whole basis of this discussion is around the perceived threat if used and probability of success. As long as the threat is ‘credible’ then they are doing their job.
The definition of credible is the interesting point:
– Trident: Absolute guarantee of complete destruction of Moscow.
– Nuclear Tipped Cruise Missiles: Better than 50/50 chance of significant damage to Moscow and loss of life.
At the end of the day is the credibility of the threat that much different?
@ Observer,
“What makes you think the person calling the instant sunshine shot is going to be the one paying for it?”
— I think you took the hypothetical game a little literally! I’m not suggesting that nuclear powers aim their firepower specifically at the opposing leader. The me/you dynamic being more representative of my country/your country. And provoking an action that gets hundreds of thousands of your countrymen killed in a nuclear fireball is not the same as quelling a small domestic riot. It’s not the sort of thing you can just brush under the carpet and talk your way around in an age of 24 hour global media. Even the Chinese are beginning to realise that they can’t control the flow of information in the same way they used to.
“And just as a strong point of clarification, Israel does have a nuclear option, one that may be even stronger than the UK”
— Erm, I know? We just don’t the precise details about all its workings and branches etc.
And the point is that they have this capability but are still holding off from using it against another state that they suspect of being close to developing a nuclear weapon, despite historically being a nation that has few qualms about using extreme measures to go after its enemies.
This kind of punctures some of the theories that have cropped up that nations with nuclear options will indiscriminately just fire off weapons at people that they disagree with.
It also highlights the fact that there is more than one way to skin a cat. If a nation as concious about defence as Israel is happy to accept options other than SSBN’s, that should probably suggest to us that options other than SSBN’s might be worth looking at.
@martin
You’re still thinking in terms of fixed annual budget with approved budget increases and forced decreases. Until you move out of that mindset, future MOD spends won’t make sense to you.
Australia & Japan have long held an anti nuclear posture, but I read snippets that a growing minority in both countries is starting to question that.
Some Australians are starting to realise that no SSK can do all that they want. So the taboo is slightly broken & they are starting to look at Virginia/Astute classes & wonder if they would be allowed to procure them. I would lease Australia an Astute in a flash.
With Hiroshima & Nagasaki, Japan has been anti nuclear weapons, but recent antics by N Korea & China, has again broken the taboo, again with a growing minority willing to look at Japan getting a few tactical warheads. Chinese sabre rattling could lead to a nuclear armed Japan, probably not what Beijing wanted.
Hi, Chris.B. “Frankly I don’t think any major power really believes it could get away with a first strike.”
First strike is a part of current Russian military doctrine in the event that survival of the Motherland is threatened. It’s a position coloured by their experience with the nazis, and is given credibility by their extensive tactical nuclear arsenal.
I wouldn’t bet against Israel having its own conditions for first strike either. They certainly have the principle of pre-emptive action, and would they really have the means to destroy all the hardened Iranian nuclear sites without deploying nuclear bunker busters?
I think that the above Russian rational is the only reason for a first strike by anything other than a bunch of hooligans. However, we’re not Russia, is the question not “when would the UK ever go for first-strike”?
I don’t really see this happening, with the exception of being backed into a corner (e.g. 1982 going seriously wrong), and in that case it would be a single tactical (TLAM) warhead or two, not 192 Trident launched warheads raining down like hell-fire.
It’s the second-strike and subsequent strikes that confuse me. Actually the second-strike is the problem because as far as I can see for subsequent strikes you simply have to be the last to launch.
So, if the realistically viable situation is that the UK may deliver second-strike (and not likely any other) then it is simply retaliation for an attack on our soil. Notice the word “retaliation”, not undoing what’s been done, not stopping any more damage, just “we’re not letting you get away with that”. So what difference is there between a 99% successful Trident launch and a 50% successful TLAM-N launch? It doesn’t change the past!
I just think the rationale for Trident is now wrong. We should spend the money on mitigating losses in the first place (missile defence screen) and being able to do damage to the aggressors facilities to stop any further attacks… if this is where Trident plays a part then sobeit.
@ The Other Chris
I fully understand the budget is not fixed. However the long term trend has been a falling share of GDP with a real inflation decrease every year. I don’t see that trend stopping do you?
What you suggest is that HMG will simply increase the MOD budget to accommodate Trident.
I hope I am wrong but I just don’t see that happening. The IMF expects it will take atleast until 2018 until the economy properly recover’s. Austerity will have to continue well past 2020 and the bill for Social care will rise every year. This does not seem like an environment of real term increases in defence spending.
@ Martin
“While the deterrent was a highly effective tool to stop the Soviets invading Western Europe it offers little deterrent to say China invading Taiwan etc etc.
We would never use Nuclear Weapons against China in this circumstance.
If all we are left with is the Nuclear option then things might just get out of control.”
Apologies if this has been covered already, not read past this one yet, but IMO it strikes at the heart of why we have a CASD.
As I understand it we have CASD as we envisaged in any major war the other side would realise that it could not win conventionally and would resort to a nuclear attack to rebalance the odds and we did not think if Russia decided to demonstrate their commitment by nuking the UK that the US would necessarily retaliate if a negotiated settlement was possible. I am not sure, beyond adding China to the mix, that this calculus has really changed.
Taking the China scenario attacking Taiwan, and being stopped by a NATO naval task force, it’s hard to imagine what China’s response would be if we successfully repelled their forces – with such a serious loss of face they could do just about anything, while it’s more likely that they would nuke Taipei than London, if we have disarmed we become vulnerable, and the other options (like keeping the nukes in cupboard and getting them out when needed) allow us to be disarmed to easily by a pre-emptive strike against the bunker, and it would be a brave politician to authorise the unlocking of the nuclear weapon bunker short of anything other than WWIII, .
While I agree we do not need Trident for a limited second strike against a rouge state like North Korea, our strategy appears to be to intercept their missiles, and avoid having to deal with the situation (not least as the public are blind to real politics, and if North Korea nuked Manchester, the public would accept nothing less than full retaliatory strikes, while politicians would be aware of the risks of pissing off China).
CASD is a guaranteed second strike weapon. No other system or combination of systems guarantees a second strike.
A survey was allegedly done on silo basing but the space required was the equivalent of Wales.
Chris B, have a look at Israeli ports and their location and then you will realise why SSBNs are no use to Israel even if they wanted them.
As Simon mentions, Trident is a revenge weapon. It does very little to shape a situation in order to try and avoid a successful attack in the first place. An effective ABM system is not a white knight system for all nuclear threats though. I mentioned nuclear torpedoes on the other thread; ABM obviously won’t stop a nuclear torpedo taking out your fleet, or stop a nuke in a shipping container taking out a major port. There are much more ambiguous ways to launch a nuclear attack on the UK than lobbing a ballistic missile, and torpedoes and iso containers are technically simpler delivery methods. That kind of ambiguity could embolden an enemy to try its luck, the Cold War certainty of where a nuclear attack might originate has long gone.
@martin
Yet you’re still thinking of the implications in terms of a budget.
Kindly do not presume to imply that I suggest anything, as this is not the case. I am conveying the system to you, yet you are failing to see the implications of the system.
You will see I have not at any point suggested that the MOD budget should be increased, because the system does not follow the concept of a budget as you, clearly and evidently, understand it.
The MOD receiving funds is now based on committed funding for defined program’s. Annual commit in the region of the previous budgetary system can be expected during the crossover period.
@ The Other Chris
The MOD receiving funds is now based on committed funding for defined program’s. Annual commit in the region of the previous budgetary system can be expected during the crossover period.”
This is irrelevant Chris. We tend not to embark on new projects to add new capabilities but to replace old worn out kit. Our Budget is X and we require Y to replace kit. X is likely fixed so if you add something on to Y that was never there in the past then we have to remove other items from Y to pay for it.
Phil’s statement’s on not committing to projects etc etc balh blah blah mean bugger all in this equation. I don’t see how you don’t get that
When were silo mentioned? I missed that…
One of the reasons we got rid of the V-force was the UK’s geography is too small even if the planes were dispersed. Forget TLAM-N launched from vehicles too for the same reasons.
Silos can’t just be plonked anywhere they need to be sited in suitable ground.
SSBN’s are the best option. The missiles are so many 100 metres down in a patrol box that measures a lot on both sides.
@martin
Artfully argued? I think not. These are important concepts and you do me a disservice by “blah blah blah” -ing.
You’re still thinking in terms of the old system. You think that paying for Successor will leave our kids with nothing else which gives an inclination of how you view the scale of the expense.
I have my doubts you’ll be able to shift paradigms as you’re still using “budget” as your base terminology, despite advice to the contrary, together with the idea that the MOD is still spending from a fixed pot of money.
I’ll decide what is relevant to my argument. You decide whether you want to accept even parts of that argument and alter your viewpoint. I’m not pointing a gun to your head.
If you do, you’ll have a revelation in terms what’s possible in procurement and ongoing commits going forward. If not, all you’ll ever see is what has to be cut to “pay for” the next piece of kit, whether it’s new or a replacement. It’s a battle that needs to fought institutionally as we’ll, else the new approach will fail to a self fulfilling prophecy.
@Repulse
Yes, a 50% kill instead of 100% makes a massive difference.
At 100%, what you get is a total no win stalemate.
At 50%, your enemy still has sufficient conventional forces, even if it’s by forced conscription, to overrun all that you have left.
Despite the “everything disappears” image of a nuclear exchange, reality is that there will still be large parts of the country worth taking over, even if it’s simply for the loaction.
And ABM screens, while nice to have, are really not very effective. The fastest cruise missile theoretically, runs at Mach 7. Ballistic missiles run at ~Mach 12-16. Totally bat out of hell speeds. Add decoys and chaff to that and the chances of an intercept go way down. One of the really interesting ways used as a counter though was to use nukes to kill nukes, but it’s still a brute force approach.
@John H
Nuclear armed Taiwan and Japan? China will get a heartattack straight out. Low trajectory shot. China’s version of the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Observer
Politics in Australia & Japan have not gone pro nuclear yet, but the ground is shifting slightly. How that plays out depends on China & N Korea. If they terrify the region, then official & public opinion in Australia & Japan could demand a pro nuclear posture.
Japan has long been a threshold nuclear power with civilian nuclear power and space project, essentially the basis of a nuclear deterrent capability. However, with the political impact of the Fukushima disaster, crossing the threshold might be more difficult for the Japanese public, who having been on the recieving end didn’t like nuclear weapons to begin with.
Having said that, the growing stand off with China might change opinions…
@ x
‘When were silo mentioned? I missed that…’
There was a report, I would imagine going through the motions mainly, it did look into the various options namely an RAF based missile defence a silo defence and the current version. I think V-force’s downfall was better SAM systems rather than the UK geography. Those on Q would have been airborne anyway, interestingly they would have avoided the UK. The plan would have been (if possible) to disperse around the world in 48 hours from Goose bay to Perth. I think they did it quite a bit.
Back on topic I believe several reports over the years were written but came out with same answer. I think the last one is publically available.
@ Topman
I did say one of the reasons. :)
As APATS said a “missile farm” like those in the American Mid-West was never ever an option for the UK.
Really I like to think it was more HMG realising that the RN was the UK’s only true strategic service. (Entire FAA pffff…. ;) )
@ x
I know, I was just going OT(ish).
Something to do with the type of soil (or somesuch) as well, not just space IIRC.
@ Topman re soils
You only have to look at the French installation in Vaucluse and then look at similar places in the UK.
@ Brian Black,
“First strike is a part of current Russian military doctrine in the event that survival of the Motherland is threatened”
— Perhaps, but in order to trigger it you would likely have to invade Russia. Some people are talking on here as if countries like Russia are just waiting for the opportune moment to push the button.
@ APATS,
“A survey was allegedly done on silo basing but the space required was the equivalent of Wales”
— Sure about that? That seems like an awfully bloody big area for a few missiles.
“have a look at Israeli ports and their location and then you will realise why SSBNs are no use to Israel even if they wanted them”
— The med might not be ideal SSBN territory, but again a lot of people are talking on here as if it’s SSBN or nothing. If that was really the case, I’m pretty sure the Israeli’s would take a difficult and imperfect SSBN solution over something they believed was useless anyway.
@ X
“One of the reasons we got rid of the V-force was the UK’s geography is too small even if the planes were dispersed. Forget TLAM-N launched from vehicles too for the same reasons”
— Actually, you couldn’t be more wrong.
The Yanks deployed a vehicle based, modified TLAM-N. The “Gryphon” launchers could carry four missiles and the vehicles were kept under hardened shelters. In times of tension you drive them out and they go play hide and seek in the woods. There were wings based at RAF Molesworth and somewhere else that escapes me at the minute.
They were only removed when the Russians signed a treaty, a treaty that was brought about by the threat these launchers posed in combination with Pershing missiles.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BGM-109G_Ground_Launched_Cruise_Missile
What people on here need to realise is that land based Nukes have always been a first strike option. They have never guaranteed a second strike. even mobile launchers are vulnerable to satellite, recon and humint assets.
Chris B, To say that having a Port less than 100 miles south of one of your main targets which merely has access to the eastern med and is bordered to the South by traffic from Suez, has Cyprus to the west and horrible conditions for a submarine is “imperfect”. Is like saying that we may not make good time on the M25 during rush hour.
You would be sailing the boats into water you cannot control within range of land based MPA coverage of 2 of your potential targets with no pace to hide.
if the UK was locate where Israel is I would not advocate SSBNs as the best solution.
@ Chris B
The USAF Tomahawk deployed from Molesworth and GREENHAM COMMON were a tit-for-tat response to SS(N)20/RSD10 Pioneer. The idea was as you say you drove them out of the base to a remote location in times of tension. It would have never have happened. Moving and deploying would have taken too long. In fact moving them and them being observed being move would have escalated things; not something that you would have wanted to happen. There was no nice staggered escalation phase from little bombs to slightly bigger bombs to OMG sized bombs. It would have gone from tactical to strategic in a lot less time it would have taken for the launchers to roll out of their hardened shelters to their remote location (don’t laugh at the back) somewhere in southern England. The missiles would have probably if launched would have had to have flown through or around the most densely targeted part of the UK. I am familiar with the reasons given by the Soviets for the withdrawal of RSD which lead to the 1987 treaty. In nuclear brinkmanship these multiple layers provided actual little redundancy, the latter being provided horizontally (that is more big missiles in different locations), but they did provide bargaining chips and sacrificial porns. We scrap this system here for you, will you scrap that system there for us. If silos were vulnerable in the UK you can bet conveys of soft skinned lorries would have been even more vulnerable.
I think we’re all ignoring the obvious important question…
How many cruise can we get in an ISO container?
ISO container?
I am still trying to get my head around the fact that we are more civilised now than in the fifties AND that Double-Track wasn’t a load of rhubarb…….Too much. Just too much. :)
@ Swimming Trunks,
That’s the one.
@ APATS,
“What people on here need to realise is that land based Nukes have always been a first strike option. They have never guaranteed a second strike. even mobile launchers are vulnerable to satellite, recon and humint assets”
— Although more survivable and harder to detect, submarines don’t guarantee you a second strike either. If I’m planning a first strike on you, I can go hell for leather to find your sub and take it out before I get started.
“Chris B, To say that having a Port less than 100 miles south of one of your main targets which merely has access to the eastern med and is bordered to the South by traffic from Suez, has Cyprus to the west and horrible conditions for a submarine is “imperfect”. Is like saying that we may not make good time on the M25 during rush hour”
— The whole of Israel is just as imperfect for other systems. That’s always been Israel’s problem, the fact that they’re surrounded and within easy reach of most of their enemies. They really have no good choices.
But besides, the point is that people keep talking about SSBN as the only option that works. So if that’s the case, why would Israel even contemplate any other system? If nothing except an SSBN guarantees them ability to strike back, why waste money on systems which are so thoroughly ineffective?
Given the choice of making a very difficult SSBN solution work or investing in systems that are a complete waste of time, surely they would just try and make the SSBN system work.
Or, possibly, their alternative systems might not be quite as shite as people are trying to make out.
@ X,
“It would have never have happened. Moving and deploying would have taken too long”
— How?
Unless it took them days to move just to the edge of the base, I fail to see how you can argue that. Tensions normally increase over a period of time, as a series of incidents build upon one another, especially with an enemy you consider such a major threat and would have some hefty degree of surveillance on.
“to their remote location (don’t laugh at the back) somewhere in southern England”
— You should visit Southern England. You’d be surprised how easy it is to hide stuff down here.
Though to be honest most of this is pointless. The “threats” being presented to this nation largely possess nuclear weapons for the same reason we do; to avert an attack.
When you read up on the Soviet leaders you realise most of them were part bonkers, part economically illiterate, in many ways idealistic, but not really all that concerned with world domination.
Most of the remaining threats that people bring up, China, Iran etc, have much more pressing issues to handle than worrying about releasing nuclear weapons on the UK.
I hate to say it but I think it ties back into the ideological view point that we’re still on the same level of importance as the US or China.
They have never guaranteed a second strike. even mobile launchers are vulnerable to satellite, recon and humint assets”
– Although more survivable and harder to detect, submarines don’t guarantee you a second strike either. If I’m planning a first strike on you, I can go hell for leather to find your sub and take it out before I get started.
Which would be incredibly visible, able to be monitored, lead to possibly another asset being sent to sea an ultimately futile.
The whole of Israel is just as imperfect for other systems. That’s always been Israel’s problem, the fact that they’re surrounded and within easy reach of most of their enemies. They really have no good choices.
But besides, the point is that people keep talking about SSBN as the only option that works. So if that’s the case, why would Israel even contemplate any other system? If nothing except an SSBN guarantees them ability to strike back, why waste money on systems which are so thoroughly ineffective?
Given the choice of making a very difficult SSBN solution work or investing in systems that are a complete waste of time, surely they would just try and make the SSBN system work.
Unless you move Syria and Egypt and change the EMED it is unworkable. In my humble but very well trained opinion.
Edit You would sail into horrible submarine water be forced south of Cyprus and Crete then run up against the straits of Malta, leaving a horribly restricted shallow area to operate in. yet you suggest finding the UK detterent in waters only restricted bounded by Ireland, Bermuda, the US and South Georgia.
As for the USSR, well I have heard countless arguments from very well educated people, all I can say is I am glad we faced them down.
@ Chris B
Double-Track was flawed.
Trident too long and too heavy for ISO container… Polaris would have fitted…
From an old TD links page:
http://lewis.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/5397/icbm-basing-modes
@Chris
SSBN is an utterly terrible system for the Israelis to have, that was why they went land based silos. You make it sound as if they don’t have anything, which is the wrong frame in which to look at it.
Israel has bad sea conditions, so they based it on land. The UK has bad (or maybe not so bad) land conditions, but better sea conditions, so based at sea.
But notice one very important thing. There IS a deterent, just that the placement of it is different due to individual conditions.
As for moblie launcher 2nd strikes, not really sure if they would work, after a first round exchange, the landscape would be seriously cluttered with debris, not really sure how mobile you can be then. It works as a threat though. “You move your missiles around? See, I can do so too!”
@ APATS,
You’re not listening.
Nobody is disputing that an SSBN option for Israel would be extremely difficult and come with a list of problems as long as your arm.
But on the other hand you and others are dismissing all the other options like land based missiles or cruise missiles from submarines as irrelevant because none of them work and they’re all so fundamentally flawed as to be a waste of time.
So again, if that were true, Israel would have the choice between 1) SSBN – a system that was a true bugger to set up and operate, but at least had a chance or 2) Other – all of which options you and others have dismissed as being a complete waste of time that could not possibly work.
Ergo, if Israel had a choice between a variety of systems that were doomed to fail or one that might have a chance (albeit a pain in the arse to operate) they would take the pain in the arse option because none of the others were even viable from the start.
Unless, the other options actually did have a chance, in which case the criticism of them is being over blown. Or maybe S O was right all along and the Israeli’s are a bunch of blithering idiots.
@ X,
“Double-Track was flawed”
Oh well, that settles it then. I mean the US had faith in it, spending cash on it to build it and keep it in service, and the USSR was concerned enough about it to make treaty concessions, but I guess you’ve deemed it a failure and such it is so.
Chris B
No mate, you are not understanding. From an Isreali view what they have is better than an SSBN. It is not “difficult to overcome” it is impossible and makes no military or monetary sense to pursue.
What you fail to appreciate is that some countries can never have a guaranteed SSBN second strike capability.
I note you manage to refute none of my highlighted points. i have actually had this discussion with the Israeli LNO in my last NATO job.
If you want to disagree at least try and show.
1. How it would work.
2. Why it is the best option.
@Chris
I think you went too far to one side. All these options work, to an extent, there is no one who said “it’s unworkable, you’re dreaming.” What you are missing is that some work BETTER than other options under different conditions, and in this case, the UK option of SSBNs is the better one for it, as opposed to the Israeli system, which due to local conditions, work the other way round.
I think Israels lack of SSBN’s is down to a few factors. Firstly SSBNs are monstrously expensive for a country the size of the UK. It’s way beyond the means of a small nation like Israel even if the US would sell them the design’s.
Secondly Israel buys its submarines from the German’s. There is no market where one can acquire an SSBN. Building a domestic industry from scratch would be even more expensive.
Thirdly under agreement by Kennedy, Israel is allowed to keep its nuclear weapon’s program as long as it remains secret which is why to this day neither the US or Israel have acknowledged its existence. It easy to denied a few silo’s in the desert but people would likely notice a 10,000 t nuclear submarine coming and going.
Its also easy to pass of test’s of land based missiles as nothing more than satellite launches. Very difficult to claim the same for SLBM’s.
Lastly and most importantly Israel’s weapons are designed to deter a large conventional attack from its neighbours who are not armed with nuclear weapon’s. Even if as with Iran they did acquire them they are likely to large unwieldy inaccurate things giving Israel plenty of time to launch its own strike
All very good points martin, though I might quibble a bit on the affordability.
And
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popeye_(missile)
Israeli sub-launched nuke anyone?
And before someone asks “why don’t we do it too?” remember, Israel’s targets don’t have the best in SAMs and are neighbours, so they don’t really need neither the penetration capability to get into Moscow or Beijing nor the range. And they’re on a budget, using attack subs as ad hoc SSBs
@ APATS,
“note you manage to refute none of my highlighted points”
— Sorry about this but, how many f**king times do you have to be told that I agree with you that SSBN’s are a shitty option for Israel to manage?
I say shitty and not impossible, because I’m pretty sure they could do it if they were really inclined that way.
Now earlier in this thread people have been dismissing every other option except SSBN, claiming how this and that can’t guarantee retaliation, or that system would never work, and that thing would never be reliable etc.
If those systems were really as shit as people have been making out, then a country like Israel wouldn’t even bother with them. It’s certainly not going to stake its survival on systems that have no hope of working.
Thus, if SSBN was the only solution then no matter how shit it may be for them, they would take it. They don’t, they use other systems.
Which tells us what? That these systems likely have a good chance of doing their advertised jobs, or at least an adequate chance.
Ergo, land based ICBM’s for example are not the dead, worthless option that some people have been making out.
Does this make sense now?
To change the subject a bit, Israel is a rare example of a country with a “Triad” of delivery options, MRBM, air and sub (via cruise missiles launched from SSK’s). Perhaps if we are balking at the cost of the SSBN option, we could consider doing something similar with Astute/TLAM-N, Typhoon/Storm Shadow and a land based Storm Shadow on a truck?
Chris B said “Oh well, that settles it then. I mean the US had faith in it, spending cash on it to build it and keep it in service, and the USSR was concerned enough about it to make treaty concessions, but I guess you’ve deemed it a failure and such it is so.”
The bit in italics is what it is all about. Nobody had faith in it. You don’t understand the political and military context of nuclear weapons during the Cold War. If the USSR had mounted neutron bombs on pogo sticks the Yanks would have fielded a similar system; irrespective of whether the system would have worked or not.
I am not going to go down a rabbit hole over this so I will consider this ended here.
@Swimming Trunks
“How many cruise can we get in an ISO container?”
You’re talking about something like Club-K?
Example of a typical reaction article on the system can be found here.
@ X,
“You don’t understand the political and military context of nuclear weapons during the Cold War. If the USSR had mounted neutron bombs on pogo sticks the Yanks would have fielded a similar system; irrespective of whether the system would have worked or not.”
— I think you might want to recheck your theory on who doesn’t understand the political and military context of nuclear weapons in the cold war.
The Yanks didn’t produce the Gryphon system just to play keeping up with the Jones’s. They did it to create an advantage. And they got an advantage. Which then drew concessions.
@ Chris B
As I said I am not going to go down a rabbit hole with you. This pattern of behaviour of yours of seizing on minor points and then wringing them out for comment after comment one presumes to shore up a fragile ego is most unbecoming. The fact you continue to comment and insult when others have indicated that they no longer wish to continue doesn’t reflect well on you. On this occasion you are wrong and addressing a very complex matter in a very one dimensional child like way. There is little point in telling you to go way to read about the broader context of US-Soviet relations and the internal politics of the USSR at the time and the way they saw their world position. TLAM-N Gryphon wouldn’t have worked as a system. The fact that Gryphon and Pershing were inferior systems to and field in fewer numbers than SS-20 should tell you there was more to the matter. USSR had a distinct nuclear and conventional advantage.
AS I SAID I DO NOT WISH TO CONTINUE WITH THIS LINE OF CONVERSATION. GO AND BOTHER SOMEBODY ELSE.
As a neat diversion, have a quick scan of Blue Peacock [1] as a form of nuclear deterrent.
– Series of nuclear land mines weight 7 tons;
– 10 kiloton yield;
– Delayed fuse for several days;
– Kept warm in the winter by live chickens;
– Originally code named Brown Bunny;
– Utterly bonkers.
[1] Blue Peacock / Blue Bunny / Brown Bunny
US submariners on Ohio replacement,
http://www.theday.com/article/20121003/NWS09/121009851/1017
@X – sounds like the navy are getting anxious about their new boat; understandable I suppose given that the US has many options when it comes to delivering “instant sunshine” as someone here so succinctly put it. Just coincidence that their looking for virtually the same number of SSBNs as they plan to have CVNs?
@ X,
“AS I SAID I DO NOT WISH TO CONTINUE WITH THIS LINE OF CONVERSATION. GO AND BOTHER SOMEBODY ELSE”
Last time I checked, this was an open forum where people come to debate issues, suggest ideas, exchange theories, seek knowledge etc. Thus if you do not wish to… sorry, DO NOT WISH TO CONTINUE WITH THIS LINE OF CONVERSATION, then might I humbly suggest that you just don’t reply?
Rather than presuming that because you have walked in and spoken that everyone else must now fall into a hushed silence. If this were your blog you might have a point, but it isn’t. Your a guest on someone elses. So until TD nominates you as a moderator or forum supervisor etc, I think it would be prudent of you to keep your dictatorial commands about when and where people can speak to yourself.
“As I said I am not going to go down a rabbit hole with you”
And yet you replied anyway. Not exactly the actions of someone who didn’t want to continue. More the actions of someone who just wanted to have the last word and hope the conversation ended there.
“This pattern of behaviour of yours of seizing on minor points and then wringing them out for comment after comment one presumes to shore up a fragile ego is most unbecoming”
If that’s how you perceive having your points challenged then so be it, that’s your problem.
Where I come from people have to defend their poinst of view. They don’t just walk in, assert a claim, and then expect everyone to ohh and ahh and not ask inconvenient questions.
“The fact you continue to comment and insult when others have indicated that they no longer wish to continue doesn’t reflect well on you”
Is this opposed to your morally and intellectually superior stand point of walking in, telling people that all the years of study they’ve done is irrelevant because you know best, then saying “and that’s that”?
For some reason you have this bizarre notion that you’re permitted to walk in, insult peoples intelligence, make sweeping statements that have little basis in fact, then walk out again saying “talk to the hand” etc, then complain when people say “well actually no fella, hang on a second”.
“On this occasion you are wrong and addressing a very complex matter in a very one dimensional child like way. There is little point in telling you to go way to read about the broader context of US-Soviet relations and the internal politics of the USSR at the time and the way they saw their world position”
Because I already have. So far the only evidence we have that you have attempted this is when you made an incorrect statement about a system and then incorrectly assessed its impact on the local theatre and wider geostrategic implications.
“TLAM-N Gryphon wouldn’t have worked as a system. The fact that Gryphon and Pershing were inferior systems to and field in fewer numbers than SS-20 should tell you there was more to the matter. ”
24 hours or so ago your response to the idea of TLAM launchers based on vehicles was “Forget TLAM-N launched from vehicles too for the same reasons”. It would appear you didn’t even know they existed. And yet now all of a sudden you’re an expert on the Soviet perception of them?
Gryphon did work as a system. As did Pershing. This is what you’re missing. Those systems you call inferior and say wouldn’t have worked were in fact highly respected and indeed (in the Soviet case) highly feared.
Gryphon had the ability to carry four separate missiles on a similar sized vehicle to the SS-20 system which could only carry one. Deployed in Europe it had the ability to hit targets from the front line almost all the way to Moscow. It complimented Pershing superbly by being a low altitude, difficult to detect weapon, that added a completely different dynamic to the theatre.
Within three years flat it had coaxed the Soviets to the negotiating table. We now know that they feared its potential quite a bit.
You’re the only person that doesn’t seem to see/accept that.
You say it was nothing, a waste of time, a system that didn’t work. The players involved at the time thought very differently. There is plenty of evidence to support this. There is no evidence to support your assumption.
Which I guess would explain why you were so eager for the conversation to end.
Well Chris, to be fair to x, I also do note the same tendencies in your replies that he mentioned.
Hi, TOC. Re: Blue Peacock.
It’s been speculated that the North Koreans may have deployed nuke landmines in the absence of any reliable means of delivery (large conventional mines too). Placed at strategic bottle-necks to counter any South Korean / US invasion. A possible use for some of the tunnels they’ve dug under the DMZ. Though I expect that rather than chickens, the North Koreans use North Koreans to keep the bombs warm – sat waiting for the phone call telling them to push the big red button.
The Soviets may also have left 20 nuclear sea mines in the Med, though the IAEA lists these as unconfirmed. The captain and many of the crew of the sub that supposedly placed them died on the return journey, and the sub itself sank, so no one’s quite sure.
@ Observer,
To be fair, it doesn’t sit well with me that many people expect to be able to comment without having to defend their position against scrutiny, then just walk away whistling expecting everyone to stop and stare in awe without responding.
This is not a school class and X is not a teacher. Just because he walks in, stamps his foot and declares that to be the end of the matter does not make it so.
What you or X might call “minor points” are often critical to the overall understanding of the subject. To just wave a hand and casually dismiss them because you believe them to irrelevant or because they don’t tally with your argument is your opinion, but that doesn’t make it a fact.
I also get very amused with the double standard of x accussing me essentially of being thick, then bemoaning people for using insults. Those in glass houses and all that.
If he doesn’t wish to reply to a comment or continue a discussion then he doesn’t have to. That’s his perogative. He can just ignore the reply and move on. But his or your decision to be finished with a discussion doesn’t mean the other person involved is now banned from commenting. Believing that everyone should just stop after you’ve had your say smacks of a simple desire to have the last word.
I reference you back to the discussion I had with Phil a while back over Education where – having conceded that neither of us was making any ground on the other (though I’ve since been persuaded by some of his arguments after more thought) – we mutually concluded and agreed to end the discussion.
But to just walk off, stamping your feet in a huff and proclaiming that the argument is over because you’ve decided you’re right and that’s that does not mean that the other person is now obliged to fall silent.
If you want to leave a discussion, fine. But don’t presume that everyone else automatically has to stop talking as well.
@Chris
I was refering to his accusations of you seizing minor topics and spamming it to death, snide character assasinating remarks on people who disagree with you and one dimensional analysis. Which, unfortuantely, has a bit of truth to it.
@BB
After 3 decades of brainwashing into the cult of Kim, I’m betting they’d happily push the button too. We can only hope their 1st gen nukes are too big to shove through any tunnel rat system and that UAV/Sat recon would catch them if they tried anything like that. Ironically, I actually rate NK as more likely to start something than Iran. Iran has more to lose, considering that it is somewhat plugged into the international economy while NK isn’t and their food situation is very grim. My worst worry is that they might start a war to lose. Cash their chips and shove the infrastructure problems onto any reintergration committee.
@ Observer,
“I was refering to his accusations of you seizing minor topics and spamming it to death, snide character assasinating remarks on people who disagree with you and one dimensional analysis. Which, unfortuantely, has a bit of truth to it”
— Both you and x have indulged in “snide, character assassinating remarks” on various people throughout your time here, so again, people in glass houses and all that.
One dimensional analysis and seizing minor topics, again, a subjective opinion.
I’ve known you and x in the past to brush aside things you consider “minor”, that are in fact crucial to understanding the complete context of an argument. But that would be suggesting that you engage in one dimensional analysis, which of course I’m sure you don’t.
A ballistic missile on a 1900t patrol boat. BTW, between the first and second photos, I hope they managed to clear the decks!
http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=645
A request for help! Does anyone have a link(s) to an article explaining the need for regular production of nuclear submarines and/or the cost of delaying the 7th Astute?
i have updated my article a little to make the maths make more sense (italics).
@ Jedi – Ohhhh – going to check it out now…
One thing that hasn’t been covered a great deal is what about the Scottish Referendum in 2014 ? If SNP get their way Trident will no longer be welcome in Scotland. Now there is a lot of water to go under the bridge and things can change, but how would it change things if we have to move to a navy base on the South coast? Would the Trident option become less of an obvious choice?
http://media.caspianmedia.com/image/3816a2a4cbacd74dd47dcadeb43465a6.jpg/crop:454×250:54:100
HMS Vengeance in Devonport.
All that is needed is a new facility for the missiles.
Anything that keeps Devonport viable is welcome.
The problem with Devonport is that there are about 2 tidal windows a quarter you can get an SSBN in and out. It could actually do with being dredged now for existing users but some national water park heritage crap seems to be in the way.
What about the facilities and all the rest? Is it easy enough to rebuild it all down there, enough space etc?
@ APATS Does it make it unviable as a home for the deterent or just more work in looking after it? Would you be content with it based there?
Milford Haven could be used too.
The point is that the facilities to keep the boats running, crews trained, etc. is all on the English south coast.
All that is needed is a replacement for Coulport. If nuclear safety is an issue perhaps Hinkley Point could be used?
Topman,
Devonport is a big yard yes. The approaches would have to be dredged and a solution to Coulport disovered.
The sheer scale of the Coulport complex is not really appreciated looking at it from the outside, where you really only see the floating dock. A like for like replacement at Devonport would not be possible due to space and cost but I am sure an alternative method may be found.
The submarine school is indeed at Raleight but a lot of the simulators and the Astute complex are all at Faslane.
@APATS
As I thought it would be a big task moving it around, but possible. I wonder how much impact the referendum is having on Trident replacement? I’m sure it’s an issue they could do without I’m sure, nevertheless it’s one that will have to be considered, I don’t envy them.
Apologies for not replying, I wuz on me holidays. In Denmark! Anyway:
@Chris B
“what way? We retain our seat on the UNSC, as it cannot be taken from us. We still attend all the various G8 meetings, because of our economic power. Nuclear weapons only prevent people from invading our soil. As an offensive tool, a tool of intimidation and bargaining, they are of no use what so ever.”
I can’t see how you can draw the conclusion that nuclear weapons are of no use in bargaining and intimidation. Nor that you believe we would have the same stiffness to our influence if we gave them up. The Cuban missile crisis is a perfect example of nuclear weapons being used as intimidation and as bargaining chips. They are also a perfect example of how their threatened use can deter conflict. I am no mad man, I don’t wish to sound glib when talking about these devices, but we have enemies that would initiate such devices within the UK in a heartbeat if they knew they could get away with it. They never can because we have them also. Furthermore, Iran is showing that crises are simply not, er, simple and many world views are being juxtaposed on a geographical area and some of those world views include nuclear powers broadly hostile to how we’d ideally like to settle the Iran issue. This makes Iran a nuclear issue, first and fore-most – I simply cannot see how you think we’d have anything like the same clout or influence were we not armed with nuclear weapons. Yes we’d keep the trappings of our global position but to any serious strategic thinkers (ie the Russians and Chinese) we could be completely discounted. Iran affects us, we have weapons that ensure we have some say in how it goes and are not completely and utterly ignored by nuclear armed powers whose juxtaposed world views are conflicting with ours over Iran.
“But it’s not just our worry, it’s the worlds worry.”
And Russia and China can safely ignore almost all the rest of the world over the matter. They simply cannot afford to ignore France, the UK, Israel or the US over the matter. We are talking about each side having fundamental points of vital interest in the Iran question and everyone knows that there’s plenty of potential to step on some very sensitive toes – we, the west, simply will not tolerate a nuclear armed Iran, Russia knows this, probably agrees with this, but it simply cannot tolerate the West doing what it wants when it wants like it has been doing. You don’t push around a nuclear armed power lightly, whilst someone like Russia can still spit right in the face of everyone else on the matter.
Israel’s deterrent is focused on a very specific threat and a very specific context. They also do have SSBNs, they de facto have the Ohio class since you know as well as I do that the US will NEVER see Israel attacked with nuclear weapons and do nothing. If Russia threatened Israel they could potentially destroy the Israeli deterrent on the ground, except they couldn’t really because that would mean war with the US. Why divert funds into building SSBNs over nuclear warheads when all you need is enough nuclear warheads to guarantee your soil and get the US involved.
Hey Phil,
I hope you brought back some nice Danish bacon for the TD kitchen?
“The Cuban missile crisis is a perfect example of nuclear weapons being used as intimidation and as bargaining chips”
— I think the situation that resulted in that crisis is vastly different to ours. The Russians were countering growing US moves around the world by deploying offensive minded weapons close to US territory.
We don’t really have that option. Our nuclear capability is defensive and we have a clear no first strike policy. People understand that we are not about to start indiscriminently throwing thermonuclear bombs around, so that threat is largely toothless. We possess a reactive capability, not an aggressive, bullying capability.
“I simply cannot see how you think we’d have anything like the same clout or influence were we not armed with nuclear weapons”
— That pre-supposes that we have much clout in the Iran issue in the first place. The US and Israel are currently handling that situation from an aggressive stand point. I suspect we would turn our intelligence assets to the task, but that’s an influence that is not dependent on our nuclear weapons.
Our views on the matter might be heard, but they’re nothing compared to the US. If we disagree with the US over the situation then it means nothing. People are listening to the US on our side of the fence. Our opinion either aligns with them or it opposes them. If it aligns with them then having Trident changes nothing, and if we oppose them then it means nothing because they are the dominant power.
I think in some situations, like this, people grossly over rate our ability to influence and shape events. We are a very minor part of the debate. Our influence probably extends only as far as our ability to convince Oman to play ball.
“They [Israel] also do have SSBNs, they de facto have the Ohio class since you know as well as I do that the US will NEVER see Israel attacked with nuclear weapons and do nothing. If Russia threatened Israel they could potentially destroy the Israeli deterrent on the ground, except they couldn’t really because that would mean war with the US. Why divert funds into building SSBNs over nuclear warheads when all you need is enough nuclear warheads to guarantee your soil and get the US involved”
— Replace “Israel” in the brackets above with “United Kingdom” and the argument remains unchanged. So what’s good for the Goose is good for the Gander.
Phil,
Your final paragraph strikes me as a little odd/concerning. It seems pretty blasé about the decision for the US to “get involved” at a high level when it’s not their soil under threat.
Is this really the case?
Does the UK offer a similar “promise” for its Commonwealth alies?
“The Russians were countering growing US moves around the world by deploying offensive minded weapons close to US territory.”
Isomorphically, much is the same now. Russia is obsessed and paranoid about the West helping itself to the sovereignty of other nations it has morale disagreements with. It is not inconceivable that Russia considers Iran in a similar vein to how the US viewed Cuba – it is more nuanced and more complex but the problem is still: how to stop the US from doing what it wants and gaining advantages over us.
“Our nuclear capability is defensive and we have a clear no first strike policy.”
I don’t disagree and I thank God we have no first strike policy. All nuclear weapons programmes are essentially defensive, even if one intends to defend by attack as the Soviets may, or may not have seriously considered from time to time. Look at it from the Russian point of view, the ONLY thing stopping them dropping a nuclear bomb on the Iranians right this second is the potential Russian nuclear reaction and the fact that this would immediately bring about a potentially catastrophic crisis between the US / NATO and Russia. The USSR and the US have stared each other down over Israel before, it is plain and apparent that the Middle East is the fault line between US and Russian interests and we’ve been doing what we want there for some time now. Iran is clearly a Russian line in the sand – I don’t think Russia wants a nuclear armed Iran anymore than we do but it wants the issue settled on its terms.
The point is, having nuclear weapons constrains your options, but it also constrains your foes options which to me is the entire raison d’etre for them – mutual strategic slow motion and the ability to thereby avoid any major conflict. In my mind, nuclear weapons contain major wars by constraining options. There is a strong argument that allowing Iran the bomb will maker her more stable in foreign policy terms since she then becomes fair nuclear game and that tends to make rulers and regimes think far more carefully.
“Our views on the matter might be heard, but they’re nothing compared to the US. If we disagree with the US over the situation then it means nothing. People are listening to the US on our side of the fence.”
I agree. But I am talking from an Iranian stand point. They seem to have a particular distaste for us, the UK. That distaste will remain at a distance and theoretical whilst we are a nuclear armed power.
“Replace “Israel” in the brackets above with “United Kingdom” and the argument remains unchanged. So what’s good for the Goose is good for the Gander.”
I don’t quite agree. Israel faces very specific threats and can afford to tailor its nuclear forces in such a manner. We potentially face more diffuse threats that may or may not see the US as inter-linked with us as it is with Israel. The US is increasingly looking toward the Pacific, we are not, in a military sense. It makes sense to maintain an independent credible nuclear deterrent. If it was still the Cold War I’d agree with you, we could arguably have dispensed with SSBNs and simply have had a tactical or IRBM capability since the US was locked into our defence in the same manner it is locked into Israeli defence.
As it stands I believe we should maintain a nuclear deterrent. I think we are in agreement with that. But we differ because I think only SSBNs offer credibility and we cannot, as Israel de facto does, rely on US SSBNs as the world has changed and we are no longer quite so inter-locked with the US and we may in the future, face threats that the US might be keen to distance itself from. An admittedly quite unlikely scenario but we are dealing with such fundamental issues I personally do not see we can take the chance.
“Is this really the case?”
The US has made it clear, crystal clear, time and time again that it will never allow Israel to fall. This is a double edged sword for Israel as it means she can exist under US guarantee but that fact also constrains her freedom of action since Israel’s actions can bring about a wider international crisis involving the US, Russia and possibly China. If you don’t think this could happen then look at the 1973 war where the US and the USSR began to align against each other over Israeli actions.
You can also find many, many references in Presidential speeches over the decades regarding US policy toward Israel.
They seem completely, dead serious about not letting Israel fall. If they were not serious about it, they wouldn’t have put up with all the crap they have from that country and they wouldn’t have shipped them all the kit and stores in 1973.
I don’t believe we are in a similar position viz our Commonwealth countries since none of them really face the same level of existential threat Israel does.
Phil
Has the USA removed itself from NATO and the obligations of the founding of that organisation?
Only at the point that it does or we remove ourselves from NATO would there be a requirement for the uk to retain a casd ssbn based option.
our nuclear policy:
Nuclear weapons policy
3.5 At the beginning of this Parliament, the Foreign
Secretary announced a review of our nuclear
declaratory policy to ensure that it is appropriate
to the political and security context in 2010 and
beyond. The UK has long been clear that we
would only consider using our nuclear weapons in
extreme circumstances of self defence, including
the defence of our NATO Allies, and we remain
deliberately ambiguous about precisely when, how
and at what scale we would contemplate their use.
3.6 As a responsible nuclear weapon state and
party to the NPT, the UK also remains committed
to the long term goal of a world without nuclear
weapons. We will continue to work to control
proliferation and to make progress on multilateral
disarmament, to build trust and confjdence
between nuclear and non-nuclear weapon states,
and to take tangible steps towards a safer and
more stable world where countries with nuclear
weapons feel able to relinquish them.
3.7 We are now able to give an assurance that
the UK will not use or threaten to use nuclear
weapons against non-nuclear weapon states
parties to the NPT. In giving this assurance, we
emphasise the need for universal adherence to
and compliance with the NPT, and note that this
38
The Strategic Defence and Security Review
assurance would not apply to any state in material
breach of those non-proliferation obligations. We
also note that while there is currently no direct
threat to the UK or its vital interests from states
developing capabilities in other weapons of mass
destruction, for example chemical and biological,
we reserve the right to review this assurance if the
future threat, development and proliferation of
these weapons make it necessary.
Alliances are such fickle things don’t you think?
Phil,
“it is more nuanced and more complex but the problem is still: how to stop the US from doing what it wants and gaining advantages over us,”
— I’d agree that is the primary Russian interest in Iran. Iran is a tool that they can use to work away at the west, keeping it tied down in the region. I’m just not sure whether Russia is really that supportive of Iran to the extent that they would do anything to oppose western influence there. They’ve already refused to sell on their latest SAM systems, which I think is smart on their part but also shows the sort of boundaries that they’re not prepared to cross.
“The point is, having nuclear weapons constrains your options, but it also constrains your foes options which to me is the entire raison d’etre for them – mutual strategic slow motion and the ability to thereby avoid any major conflict”
— Again I think I agree in principle, but I also think the extent to which nuclear weapons constrain activity is limited. The US could not get UNSC authorisation for Iraq, but it went ahead anyway. Fundamentally when it came to the final showdown, the other powers folded their hands because the US had all the conventional chips in the right place, and nobody was going to start world war 3 to protect Saddam.
I think that’s why the US is a little more cautious when dealing with China, because China has some conventional cards tucked up its sleeve beyond the ultimate weapons. It has a credible ability to obstruct the US without having to resort to that final gamble.
“They [Iran] seem to have a particular distaste for us, the UK”
— They’ve never gotten over the whole 1953 thing. We essentially cemented the place of a dictator who they later over threw, so I guess by extension they still blame us (probably with a fair amount of cause) for much of what happened under the Shah. Our buddy, buddy, relations with a lot of the Middle East probably doesn’t go down to well either.
“We potentially face more diffuse threats that may or may not see the US as inter-linked with us as it is with Israel”
— Agreed on the first, but not sure about the second. We still represent the key link between the US and Europe, and we remain a prime US ally. I’m not sure the US can afford to allow us to be attacked and not retaliate. I think for a start that would severely disrupt NATO. The principle of that treaty would be grossly undermined if the US refused to respond, and that could have huge issues for the US. Their credibility as an ally would be shattered, and they can kiss good bye to their European based missile defense systems.
“As it stands I believe we should maintain a nuclear deterrent. I think we are in agreement with that. But we differ because I think only SSBNs offer credibility and we cannot, as Israel de facto does, rely on US SSBNs”
— I think if the government looked at the SSBN option a different way, and treated it (and all its associated costs) as a critical national asset which was funded separately by the Treasury, I could live with that. I think the move to bring it under the accounting of defence should trigger a study of alternatives.
Personally, I think we could probably use an alternative method and get by, and maybe even let go of the bomb entirely. But I appreciate that the final option would probably be impossible to push through an government.
“Again I think I agree in principle, but I also think the extent to which nuclear weapons constrain activity is limited.”
I agree that the constraints operate at the margins. But the margins represent general world war which in this age of industrial and bureaucratic capacity and the now normative total victory doctrine means essentially a war of extermination. I agree that when we are not in the margins nuclear weapons have next to no use in limiting conflict, but they do in the most dangerous types of conflict. Cuba is an example of nuclear weapons beginning at limiting warfare at the margins. If nuclear weapons were not involved the threshold to fire at one another would have been far, far lower. Sinking a few Commie ships would have been considered a perfectly plausible shot across the bows thus allowing an escalation. When the consequences of that shot across the bow is nuclear war, one is in practise, despite the rhetoric, very reluctant to take it. Of course, this limits your options too as I said but that is the nature of the nuclear genie.
“It has a credible ability to obstruct the US without having to resort to that final gamble.”
It depends on the interests. If they were totally vital to the US the US would not hesitate to bring nuclear weapons into the mix, or the threat of them. History shows us that very clearly.
“We still represent the key link between the US and Europe, and we remain a prime US ally.”
I agree we do. I am pointing out though that we cannot guarantee this will continue. It is normal to think ones group is more important but the US arguably has more important regional allies and interests in the East. A perfect storm for Europe would be the US engaged in the East with Europe facing a regional threat or pressure from the Russians that the US did not consider to be important enough to go to war for. This could for example be Russia blackmailing the EU with energy shortages or some such. I admit its a far fetched scenario but the world throws up these left field things as a matter of routine. Perhaps the US gets burned in a future conflict and elects a fiercely isolationist Government that does its best to ignore the strategic realities of one power attempting to conquer the World Island. As I have said the key phrase for the next 20-30 years is uncertainty.
“I think the move to bring it under the accounting of defence should trigger a study of alternatives.”
If there was a cheaper way to maintain a credible, independent deterrent I would support it. I have not yet been convinced that any of the options available other than SSBNs can do that. Nothing offers the levels of assuredness we get now. If we must spend money on the deterrent, which I think we do because it gives us some level of influence and independence in an uncertain world where there are nation states that have publicly called for our destruction, then it must be done properly. Having a second best deterrent is a complete waste of money and resources.
Phil: “…Israel’s actions can bring about a wider international crisis involving the US, Russia and possibly China. If you don’t think this could happen then look at the 1973 war where the US and the USSR began to align against each other over Israeli actions.”
I don’t think the US and USSR began aligning against each other in 1973, the Cold War began a little earlier. America and Russia had been the dominant powers in the ME since Britain and France had been forced to give up their regional pretentions after Suez. The Soviets had armed Egypt and Syria, enabling the attack on Israel – it was inevitable that the US would support Israel to some extent, the same pattern runs right through the Cold War whether in Asia, Africa or the Americas.
What I meant was they started to properly square up to one another.
The US went to DEFCON 3 I believe, in 1973 because the Soviets threatened to intervene.
Chris.B. “…a study of alternatives [to the SSBN option]”.
I thought some government analysis of alternatives had been carried out in regards to cost and effectiveness of systems, with sub-launched ballistic missiles coming out ahead as expected. But what hasn’t been studied is whether we’d be just fine without nukes, or perhaps better off pouring the cash into conventional forces – of course, any such study would be entirely subjective, delivering a result which reflected the existing opinion of whoever were to conduct the study.
“I thought some government analysis of alternatives had been carried out in regards to cost and effectiveness of systems, with sub-launched ballistic missiles coming out ahead as expected”
— Then lets see it ;)
I think the issue, and bringing Phil back into this, is to what extent the word “effective” or “credible” reaches.
For example, imagine a distributed network of Trident missiles, based on land, with a central facility that stores and maintains excess warheads. Some of the Trident weapons are fully armed, some are only partially armed, some are completely unarmed.
Every now and again live warheads and dummy trucks leave the central facility and distributed around the various sites, in order to keep enemy intelligence guessing as to which missiles retain live warheads and which do not.
Such weapons could hit anyone but the Aussies and the New Zealanders, and in order for an enemy to hit all of these distributed sites (just to stand a chance of taking out the deterrent), it would require a significant amount of firepower, the kind that couldn’t help but prompt a response from the US.
And that’s presuming you can get all your shots away without them being pinged and prompting a return fire.
I think that would provide a sufficient degree of deterrance and I’d be interested to know how much it would cost.
I think if I may say so you’re missing the point of credible deterrence. It is the case that more than likely our nuclear ready weapons are in a location that is unknown to any potential enemy. They have nothing to fire at even if they wanted to. Putting your missiles in silos gives them something to fire at and it gives the foe the notion that using simple arithmetic it becomes plausible to defeat our deterrent by firing enough weapons. At that moment it ceases to be a deterrent. In order to make it credible using silos you’d need something like the proposed MX system from the 80s.
SSBNs give you nothing to shoot at. Anything else does.
And in an uncertain world I believe we must have an independent creditable deterrent.
http://www.libdemvoice.org/opinion-a-submarine-for-all-seasons-30657.html
At the end of the day the decision on the level of deterrence required will be a Political one.
It is the job of the military to spell out what each option brings in terms of risk, capability and deterrence.
The only guaranteed second strike capability is provided by an SSBN but it also an expensive option.
A cruise missile option brings different capabilities and options, as well as problems.
An air based solution again has pros and cons.
Land based silos I believe were looked at but the area required to make it anything other than a target for an enemy first strike was too large to be practical.
I think most people in the military are pretty relaxed about what the decision will be as long as the Govt are properly briefed in so much as “no non CASD” system will offer the same level of deterrence as we currently have.
It is then up to them to decide the required level.
Looking at that Independent article, it seems the Government will publish the results of its study at the start of next year anyway, so we’ll all have something to read for a cold day in January/February.
“I think if I may say so you’re missing the point of credible deterrence”
— To me that phrase “credible deterrence” suggests a system that involves such harsh repercussions for the potential aggressor that the consequences of their actions make the action pointless.
I think the system outlined above could achieve that. The scale of attack required to shut it down completely would be tremendous. With sites co-located onto various bases you could probably pull it off.
Of course that’s just one option. I do wonder though when I look at our European neighbours and think “they seem pretty content that they’re not going to get blasted any time soon” whether that might be an option. Shufty the warheads off somewhere safe for the time being.
Swimming Trunks,
Didn’t realise, but that LibDem thing links back here in one of the hyperlinks.
Yes but the author is a certain Gareth Jones? Congratulations if that’s you ST.
“The scale of attack required to shut it down completely would be tremendous.”
But it wouldn’t be. To you or me I am sure the numbers involved would be tremendous but to a nation like Russia it certainly would not be.
Furthermore, it would be far cheaper for them to produce warheads and missiles than for us to continuously expand our missile silo’s. What you are proposing is vaguely similar to the US MX programme of the 80s (less elaborate but deception is the main property you are after) and that died because its simply easier to put missiles on more submarines, especially in this country. This is before we get into the political problems of having a nuclear missile silo built in your back yard – people are going spastic over a bloody train track and wind-farms – just imagine the fuss if you said we’re surrounding your area with nuclear missile silos and all the road accesses needed for them.
All things considered, for a creditable nuclear deterrent, this country needs SSBNs. Nothing else I have seen is anything like as viable or as invisible as the SSBN.
“We still represent the key link between the US and Europe, and we remain a prime US ally.”
Took ’em a long time to bother with us in WW2.
We’re a tool in their political toolkit. Nothing more. They “play” us way, way more than we “play” them.
As for a “key” link, I really don’t think we’re that important nowadays. International commerce and finance play a more important role in their “link” to Europe. We are no longer the Empire.
This idea of silo “deception” doesn’t really work for a country as physically small as the UK.
They could realistically blanket nuke the UK – still quite a job fortunately!
It would take a lot more to blanket nuke the Atlantic.
The major benefit of tactical delivery over ballistic missiles is the substantially lower cost, and money that is invested in tactical delivery also provides enhanced conventional capabilities while waiting for WWIII.
The USAF’s B61 mod 11 bomb has a variable yield of about 0.3 – 340kt, similar class to the RAF’s now defunct WE177. It can be carried by Tornado, and two should fit internally in F35B. The upcoming mod 12 is a nuclear JDAM and has a lower max yield of 50kt.
If a small portion of the 20bn to be spent on SSBNs had been added to the CVF pot, the carriers could have had cats and flaps fitted. A little more of that 20bn could have bought some production model X47b with their 2000plus nm range – enough to strike Moscow from the NE Atlantic, Med or gulf. You’d have strategic scaled payload and strategic range with a tactically delivered nuke, no SSBN costs, marginal increased carrier costs, but a substantially enhanced conventional strike capability with the uk still in the nuclear club.
And a second rate and still expensive nuclear deterrent which was not credible and not continuous.
Pie in the sky rubbish.
BB,
Well done for getting the carrier into this thread ;-)
I’d still be somewhat concerned about the retaliation your solution offers, even if some here are not.
Still seems like a deterrent to me… as long as we’ve invested some of your £20b into long-range, stealth, nuclear, cruise missiles launched from Astute and T45’s A50 tubes.
For a credible deterrent, Phil, you first need a credible threat.
As we sit on our island, becoming evermore irrelevant amongst the world’s emerging powers, who will bother to expend a nuke in our direction?
Thank you, Simon. Did I mention how effective the enhanced carriers would be during Falklands War II? Much more useful than an SSBN fleet, for which we carry treaty obligations to not threaten Argentina with.
“As we sit on our island, becoming evermore irrelevant amongst the world’s emerging powers, who will bother to expend a nuke in our direction?”
So the world, in the last 100 years has never taken an odd or sudden change of direction? It took 14 years from first expressing an interest in Trident to the first Trident armed patrol. There is an awful lot of scope for things to happen in 14 years.
As to who would bother. I can think of several powers that would love to throw a nuke our way if they could get away with it. They are more of a threat to us than the USSR ever really was and yet you seem to think that our threat levels have reduced?!
Uncertainty is the key theme now. It is too high a risk to bear to allow the SSBN capability to lapse. From 1955 to 1969 (ie 14 years) the Soviet nuclear stockpile went from tens to around 10,000, it tripled over the next 14 years. In 1930 the world was at peace and in the midst of the Great Depression, 14 years later the largest amphibious invasion ever seen was in progress and millions of men were engaged in a global war across four or five main fronts.
You can’t just think things won’t change or take an unexpected direction.
Our relative standing in the world -political, economic and military- will only decline as other nations improve their own position, Phil. We’l likely slip down the G20 rankings, we’ll become less significant at the UN as other countries -Japan, Brazil, India- succeed in getting a permanent seat, and our shrinking military will become less relevant in the thoughts of any potential foes.
We won’t be in anyone’s nuclear sights for any reason other than maintaining the ability to fire ballistic nukes around the world; and none of the major powers can ever tolerate a rogue state crossing the nuclear war threshold without offering up a response. We also have the NP treaty obligation to disarm entirely… so why not give up Trident and SSBNs, Phil? Go on, you know you want to.
I’ve offered up the B61, Phil. You can straddle that thing and ride it to oblivion if you want, can’t do that on a D5. Is a B61 not enough for you?
Some advantages I can see for SSBNs over fighter/cruise missile delivery is the range factor. For fighters or cruise missiles to drop the bomb on someone, you need either an airfield or a ship within range of your target, which can be a big problem.
Who’s going to lend you an airfield when he’s going to be accused of collaborating to commit genocide? Or grant transit rights to a ship on a mission to wipe out millions, much less berthing rights? Especially if there is a possibility that they would be hit as well in revenge/retaliation.
BB, the credible threats would be China or Iran. If they don’t want to piss off the US yet, but still score anti-white man points, especailly with the Arabs, the UK does come as a close 2nd choice target. Personally, I’d rather the world’s nuclear deterent was not totally concentrated in the hands of the US. Just in case.
there is also the french to consider, in the same light as the US.
if one gave up their deterrent the other would come under increased pressure to do the same.
for all the occasional rivalry and divergent interests both parties will be 100% keen on encouraging the other to keep theirs.
we could disarm unilaterally, but the french would be furious quite apart from the shared testing facilities we have agreed to set up in france and britain.
likewise the US would like to see NATO remain a nuclear alliance on this side of the pond, just as they value our commitment to elective warfare, for the shared commitment adds legitimacy to the action in question.
“We won’t be in anyone’s nuclear sights for any reason other than maintaining the ability to fire ballistic nukes around the world; and none of the major powers can ever tolerate a rogue state crossing the nuclear war threshold without offering up a response.”
You’ll have to market that crystal ball. You’ll make a mint.
“Took ‘em [the US] a long time to bother with us in WW2”
— Back then they were a relatively isolationist country that was wary of the benefits and trials of getting involved in European wars. Even then they still provided us with Lend/Lease from the early stages when they realised we were in a tight spot.
And yes, we are a key link. It’s easier to access European markets by setting up in a country that operates very similar to your own, down to the language, food etc.
“They could realistically blanket nuke the UK – still quite a job fortunately!”
— Absolutely they could. As Phil said, that would represent a modest percentage of their ready weapons. But that’s not what I mean by a “massive attack”.
It would take at least 3-4 separate missile shots. Maybe more depending on how many sites you have. It’s going to be practically impossible to fire that many missiles without provoking a reaction. You probably wouldn’t even get away with one shot, let’s be honest.
The US is not going to stand by and let a European nation get nuked by Russia. That would represent an unacceptable precedent. The US would have to assume that’s the start of a nuclear war and go for it.
Besides, this all quite contrived. Putin has a whole hand of options up his sleeve. What kind of bizarre international incident prompts him to put down all of his other options and go straight for the nuclear option?
The US in Iraq in ’91 believed whole heartedly that Saddam had Chemical and Biological weapons and might use them against their forces. Yet they went conventional all the way.
I just have difficulty seeing this scenario (short of a full scale invasion of his land) where a Russian leader decides his only recourse is to light up a city someone with the worlds most powerful candle.
The scenarios just don’t make any sense.
What are you going to do, hit London? Over what? Unless you’re short selling stock in UK companies there is very little to gain by doing that.
@Ant – it is indeed. Wrote the post before reading Jedi’s, which reaches a similar conclusion to mine. It is actualy a second draft – the first one was deemed too technical.
P.S. I’ve changed my gravatar and profile name due to TD’s comments ;p
Just about on topic:
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20121011/DEFREG01/310110004/NATO-Calls-Test-Italian-Missile-Defense-Radar-Successful?odyssey=mod|nextstory
“Even then they still provided us with Lend/Lease from the early stages when they realised we were in a tight spot.”
They were somewhat less helpful in the Great War. And why should they have been, they viewed it as a European war. One cannot assume that the trends and reality of today will apply to tomorrow. There are so many scenario’s from the last 100 years that would have sounded absurd had they been put to people just a few years before they occurred. Regenerating a creditable deterrent takes too long.
“That would represent an unacceptable precedent.”
Perhaps, perhaps not. My theme is uncertainty. It is not inconceivable that a schism emerges between the US and Europe which might just be as much on the part of Europe as it is on the United States.
“Putin has a whole hand of options up his sleeve. What kind of bizarre international incident prompts him to put down all of his other options and go straight for the nuclear option?”
I believe there have been plenty of possibilities these last 50 years. Cuba was one. Crises move quickly once they reach critical mass and for a crisis to reach critical mass it has to involve a key interest – it is entirely plausible to stumble upon these key interests. What might have happened in Pristina in 1999 for example? Or now we see Russia becoming belligerent toward another NATO member which could easily fast ball into something more concerning.
For the sake of money, why take such a completely fundamental risk?
“You probably wouldn’t even get away with one shot, let’s be honest.”
My point is the whole process is more creditable if the option to fire is removed as far upstream as possible. As I have said, you cannot fire at an SSBN. You can conceivably fire at silo’s you can see on Google Earth. By removing the targeting you make it that much less likely they’d even consider the first strike. Yes we are talking at the margins again but the margins mean a lot in such a high stake game.
“Yet they went conventional all the way”
Yes, we went conventional, it was our choice, we always knew Iraqi weapon systems were nothing more than tactical, at most they could have dropped some VX on Israel. There’s no way we’d have invaded if he had had strategic nuclear weapons we could not immediately disable – it’s also quite likely he’d never have invaded and thereby put us in the position of considering a nuclear strike thereby showing how a creditable nuclear force can help limit conflict.
Yes some of the scenario’s are a bit Tom Clancy. But 9/11 was about as Tom Clancy as it gets.
Tom Clancy is about right.
I think a lot of it really is very, very marginal. And £20bn is not an insignificant sum. This is one of the ways that government budgets end up spiralling out of control. A bn a year over here, a bn a year over there, a bn for this department, a bn for that, and all of a sudden you’re staring at bns extra per year. And of course, every department has an argument to show why their funding is ultra special and shouldn’t be treated like everyone else.
On balance, if the funds could be kept away from impinging the MoD budget then it probably is a marginal enough cost per year to make it worth while, what with tax claw backs, but I really worry about the potential for this being used to axe the MoD’s conventional budget further.
It just has a bad stench to it. If the MoD turns around and says they want to do it a different way or that they think we don’t need it anymore, I can see the treasury saying “well, you’re still getting your budget cut,” and then removing the difference that would have covered Trident.
Chris B,
My statement regarding blanket nuking the UK was in context of the idea of “silo deception”, nothing more.
The point being that however sneaky you are with having the nukes at site A when everyone thinks they’re at site B or C, if the area is small enough you can destroy all three sites regardless.
“Silo deception” seems to only work over a very large area with a very large network of possible locations. In other words, it’s a good idea if you’re the USA, China or Russia.
The security precautions, costs and public outrage of having weapons at Coulport and the occasional road transportation is high enough. Creating several new nuclear sites would cost a fortune and cause a public outcry.
Jedi: “we could disarm unilaterally”
I’d expect that any major steps we took in relation to disarming or downgrading our weapons would happen within a NATO and European context.
If we wanted to take those steps, we might as well see what concessions we could get, perhaps in terms of Russian weapons in Europe or on missile defence, things like that.
Phil: “You’ll have to market that crystal ball”
It’s a perfectly normal ability, to make reasoned inferences as to the future based on current events, circumstances and actions which we may choose to take. It allows us to make rational preparations for the future.
I outlined some reasons behind my judgement, that we can manage just fine without an expensive strategic delivery system, whilst maintaining a nuclear-armed status. Nuclear catastrophising, a lack of proportion in respect to the UK’s significance – with the certainty of thermonuclear destruction which that disproportion brings, and hostility towards counter arguement are signs of paranoia, not rational judgement. I’ll tell you what will and won’t happen in the next 14 years – we will drop HE on folks’ heads, we won’t live fire a D5. You have my guarantee.
Wow, are we still on land based silos? Chris, I think you might be the only proponent of the idea, the closest alternative option anyone suggested that even came even close to the silo idea was cruise missiles and FJ delivered nukes.
@ Brian Black
It is immaterial who drops the bomb. We might not, but say Pakistan or Iran uses the bomb. Then how do you sell giving up the bomb to the British people?
The combined cost of the Sandbox Wars is something like £30billion for what? £20billion is nothing. We choose not to spend money on defence.
“Wow, are we still on land based silos?”
— Because the arguments against them are still full of the words “probably” “maybe” etc. And involve them being shut down by something tantamount to a WW3 starting first strike. And the additional arguments like cost and public opposition are tenuous without figures or hard facts (we have plenty of nuclear power plants for example. There’s always public opposition to practically everything the government does, and it just gets on and does what it wants).
It’s called exploring avenues.
If it did actually come down to me to make the decision, x, I would just spend the 20-25bn on new SSBNs. Much easier to spend the cash and maintain the status quo than to sell a different idea to parliament and voters. Though I didn’t suggest getting rid of nukes altogether.
I did a google search for a submarine for all seasons and came across this 1970’s USN concept:
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=7192.0
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=OJLiSJ1w6IYC&pg=PA170&lpg=PA170&dq=APHNAS+submarine&source=bl&ots=JnuAyfVyOf&sig=MQIX_yz4rrq2KmbcL-EfdTGcAM4&hl=en&ei=IipdSv6bAofgswPRxsmzCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&redir_esc=y
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=U86giz-cluoC&pg=PA275&lpg=PA275&dq=a+submarine+for+all+seasons&source=bl&ots=uIyAe2Z1S4&sig=bWBkyHUSdw0WJ-yEhigjm_ugTs8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=5VR3UPfgL-in0AWWzYDgBw&ved=0CF4Q6AEwCg
So the idea isn’t exactly new – the suggested triple role sub could have up to 28 cruise missiles vs 20, with a range of 2,500km (?) vs 30km, or Trident.
Was I an opposition Commander summoned to my “dear leaders” Office and asked whether I could launch a “first strike” surprise attack to cripple UK ability to respond using all possible means my answer would be.
1. Cruise missiles, dependent upon whether there was a cruise CASD and what targets they were likely to engage. I know where they can engage me from and I can engage the assets alongside, in storage and if we wait until deployed SSNs are alongside we could get 80 or 90% of them.
2. Air launched, yes a first strike against aircraft and storage facilities is possible.
3. Silos, a first strike is possible unless we have annexed Wales or N Scotland.
4. CASD SSBN, No I cannot guarantee a first strike option, any effort to locate the launch platform will be massively visible and simply means the UK will go on higher alert.
Now I am pretty relaxed as to the decision made by the Govt but they need to look at it from that sort of view point and not be hoodwinked into thinking a cheaper system is “just as good”.
But again I have to ask – who would want to nuke us? Why would they want to nuke us? We’re not in a bi-polar ideological stand off with a nuclear equiped empire; the international system is no longer zero-sum.
@Tarka
China.
Nationalism has made people do silly things before, and they really are going all out pouring oil on the fires in Asia. I can really forsee things going out of control into a regional problem+ here, especially if someone miscalculates the amount of safe nationalism to inculcate into their people. They do see themselves as the next superpower, and more worryingly, the ONLY superpower, Russia being out of the picture and America looking like it’s on the path to a decline. I would prefer to have SOME limits on their behaviour, as opposed to them acting like a 600 pound gorilla.
BTW did you get your name from SoTS 1 or 2?
@Chris
IIRC your entire premise was “Israel did land based silos, so why don’t we?” which cause some of us to itterate why comparisons with Israel was not appropriate for the UK due to different location, type of threat and sea control conditions, which you ignored by the glib “if it was so important, they will make it work.” though how they could “make it work” short of giving them SSBNs while moving Israel to the side of the Atlantic, or teleporting their proposed SSBNs from their ports directly into the Atlantic, is still a mystery.
If they could teleport a SSBN to the Atlantic, they won’t even need silos anyway, you might as well teleport a warhead from an underground bunker direct into enemy cities with the added advantage of no external opening for overhead surveillance to spot.
The UK is not Israel, and unless you’re willing to do some extreme geological landscaping, will never have the UK’s advantage of access to the Atlantic.
Were I an opposition commander summoned to “Dear Leaders” office and asked whether I could launch a “first strike” surprise attack to cripple UK ability to respond using all possible means my answer would be;
“Are you f**king mental?”
“First, dear leader, you’ll have to build a supply of gas, petrol, oil, lubricants, metals, chemicals, other raw materials and food, because if you think people are going to sell us these things after pulling a fast one like that your kidding yourself.
Unfortunately that’s likely to draw a lot of attention and there’s going to be a lot of questions asked, so you’d better have some bloody good answers up your sleeve. Might I suggest, Dear Leader, that we invest some more funding into the Peoples Glorious Information Wing, ‘cos we’re gonna need some more fast talking bulls**t artists to cover this all up.
Now while I might be able to take down the British capability, that still leaves the sticky question of the other nations. Blasting Britains ability to retaliate, alongside any further attacks, is going to provoke an incredibly hostile reaction. NATO and the UN would likely be compelled to action, which means the United States could be drawn in. After all, they are one of Britains longest standing allies.
Therefore, Dear Leader, I would have to confess that I cannot, under ANY circumstances, guarantee that the United States will not deem this action to be the first shot of a potential wave of strikes. It is likely that they would view the action as a test of their resolve, and the Americans are not known for reacting subtly to such tests. In all probability it would be highly likely to provoke a response against us.
I should also warn you, Dear Leader, that France is very close Geographically to the United Kingdom. Firing weapons at the UK, it will be very difficult for the French to determine if they too are being targetted. The flight time of the weapons and the possibilities of spreading warheads using Multiple Independently targetted Re-entry Vehicles would likely preclude the French from making an accurate assessment that it is the UK, and not they, who are under attack.
We would also have to factor in, Dear Leader, the possibility that the French would attempt to logically apraise the nature of the incoming attack. Doubtless they would question why it is that anyone would launch a massive strike specifically against Britain and not also them. It is quite likely that they would presume the attack to be a double strike, aimed at both countries, as part of a wider campaign. We could not, therefore, rule out the significant probability of a mistaken counter strike by France.
It cannot also be discounted in any circumstance that the British have some smaller, portable weapons in storage. The British are an inventive nation Dear Leader, and I cannot guarantee that they will not, at some point in the future, smuggle such a weapon onto our soil and detonate it. This could be a danger that lingers for many years, and we would doubtless have to expend large resources to secure our borders water tight on a near permanent basis.
We also have to be careful about the prospect of a British Anti-Ballistic Missile system. The could achieve this capability in the near future, and it would prompt an increase in the amount of firepower we would have to deliver. Any cause for us to unleash many missiles causes problems. As the size of our first strike grows, so the risk of a retaliation by other powers massively increases.
Also on a minor point, Dear Leader, it would be most unfortunate and inconvenient, but for your own safety both you and the entire cabinet would have to go into hiding, living and ruling from behind bullet proof glass and an extraordinary level of personal protection for the rest of your lives. Almost certainly the British would attempt to assassinate you and the other senior members. But it is a small price to pay for the cause Dear Leader.
Now to the specifics, Dear Leader. The British system is built around….
…. cruise missiles fired from their Astute Class attack submarines. The British have seven of these [NB; Maybe more for a few extra billion]. At any one time some of these submarines are in port and could be attacked with our weapons, or engaged and sunk in other, unconventional manners.
However, there will likely be a number of submarines still at sea. We have no way of knowing which submarines carry nuclear armed missiles and which do not. It’s possible they all do.
One submarine is likely to be servicing the British training course and is unlikely to be carrying live weapons. This may of course be a ruse. Carrying weapons on an otherwise harmless training ship would be a possibility and we can’t rule it out. If we are to strike, I recommend taking it out, just to be certain.
The other submarines will be harder to find. By there very nature these systems are elusive and it will take much time and resources to find them. Only when we are certain of the location of all the submarines and are confident in our ability to strike them would we be able to do so.
This again will understandably attract a lot of attention. We cannot afford to allow any one submarine to sail off unnoticed, so we would have to track any submarines that we find for an extended period of time, until all submarines can be accounted for and attacked.
There is a possibility that we could allow one or two to escape, striking when we are sure that we have all but one or two in our sights, but this carries great risks Dear Leader.
First, many nations operate nuclear attack submarines. We cannot guarantee for certain that the targets we are engaging belong to the British. The consequences of inadvertently sinking the attack submarine of another nation would be most severe. If we were to sink a US submarine then we would be in great, great danger.
Secondly, if we allow a British submarine to escape with its warload then we would immediately have to assume a defensive posture which we might have to maintain for a very long time.
The British submarines would have a reasonably limited number of areas from which to launch an attack, but we would still have to smother these in ASW assets. We would need to maintain an almost constant air patrol around our skies and deploy large numbers of AAW assets around our key cities that might be targetted.
Even then, Dear Leader, there are no guarantees. The British possess modern cruise missiles capable of flying at very low levels and high speeds. So far, the record of various countries at shooting down such assets have been appallingly bad. And the British may be in possession of more advanced versions, such as the Naval version of Storm Shadow, which is designed to be even harder to detect.
We would be taking a great risk, Dear Leader, the consequences of which are unthinkable. We also have to acknowledge that the British might have additional warheads deployed on air launched weapons, but undeclared. It is a risk we cannot take to be certain. We would likely have to “deal” with British air assets, just to be certain.
This state of defensive preparation would have to maintained for a long time, Dear Leader. Submarines such as Astute can operate for very long times, limited only by food. It is not inconceivable that the British crews could ration their supplies to make their patrols last longer.
As we have seen in the past with events such as the 9/11 attacks, the only perogative for the attacked nation is to retaliate at some point, not necessarily immediately. The British may wait until our resources have been strained by the constant state of readiness, or our men have become a little more slack, and then pick a more opportune moment to strike back.
….. air launched weapons. We have a good idea where the British keep their weapons, but we cannot be certain.
The British keep their aircraft in hardened shelters. Our weapons should be able cause sufficient damage to the shelters and the aircraft inside them to negate a counter strike, but this cannot be absolutely guaranteed.
It may be possible for the British to recover their damaged aircraft at a later date and repair them, though we could probably detect this. Some of the weapons themselves would likely be kept in hard storage and it would be very difficult to guarantee their complete destruction.
I have to warn you though, Dear Leader, that such weapons could be removed later and deployed by other means. The British have a reputation for the, how do you say, Heath-Robinson modification? On a matter of this magnitude, money would no longer be a concern. It would take a somewhat suicidal pilot to pull it off, but it could be done.
Therefore I would recommend we flatten all British airbases and their aircraft production facilities. This of course would require a significant expenditure of effort that is unlikely to sit well with the international community.
…. ICBM’s, based in silos on land. These weapons are kept underground in hardened shelters. The precise nature of the protection is unknown, as is the location of the actual warheads.
Even with modern systems the accuracy of our weapons would require us to fire multiple warheads at each base. Even a modest distribution of silos around each base could cause serious problems. We have no idea what systems the British use in an emergency, such as fail safe opening of the shelters?
In addition, even a modest distribution of the shelters around a country as small as Britain would cause problems. Our MIRV’s can cover a wide area, but the area is defined in a very long elliptical manner. This would result in us having to fire multiple missiles in order to achieve the required spread.
From what angle we fire is also problematic. Modern ICBM’s are much quicker to launch than previous generations. I cannot guarantee that our warheads will arrive in time before the British return fire.
In addition, if we fail to disable all the silos then we could have serious problems. The British would undoubtedly return fire, and without an effective Anti-Ballistic Missile we would have almost no chance of intercepting the incoming return fire. Such a weapon could be carrying multiple warheads, and wreak much damage. We must make certain we get all the British weapons.
…… SSBN’s, operating at least one boat at sea at all times.
Defeating this capability would be extremely difficult. British submarines are very advanced and can hide in the vast waters of the Atlantic, or indeed any body of water they choose.
To find them we would have to expend many resources. In all likelyhood we would have to use active detection systems and arouse a lot of attention. This would likely make the British very suspect and could prompt them to launch a second submarine as an additional measure of security.
And again, I cannot guarantee that the submarine we find would be the British one. It is entirely possible that we could sink the SSBN of another power, which naturally would result in very serious consequences.
Even if we discover and correctly identify the British submarine, attacking it does not prevent the launch of an additional submarine. Further, conceivably a British submarine, armed and ready, could launch from even from its own home port. Thus we would have to strike here as well in order to attempt a knock out blow.
I fear this would be almost impossible.
Now, Dear Leader, enough of this talk. Drink this tea. Forget your worries.
Permanently.
Chris B, a good read thx.
It should be noted that i was talking from a purely military prospective.
The means used for each scenario could vary considerably beyond a MIRV or Nuclear first strike.
Even then the only guaranteed means of responding is an at sea CASD. As long as the Government knows this then they will make the decision fully informed.
@ Observer,
The contention you and others have put forward is simple;
ICBM’s in silos will not work as a deterrent, under any circumstances. It’s too easy to shut down. We don’t have enough room.
If it were true for us it would be true for the Israeli’s (with one tenth the land mass) and they would not bother. They’re smart enough to understand that if something won’t work, there is no point throwing money at it.
Given the choice then between a shitty SSBN solution that at least has a chance, or an ICBM solution that has no chance, they would take the shitty SSBN solution. Because at least it had a chance.
They do not. Which obviously means they put some stock in the ability of their land based deterrent to survive and contribute. Despite having one tenth the land mass we do.
But keep talking about teleports and landscaping.
Interesting link that covers some of the issues.
http://www.basicint.org/sites/default/files/evidence_submission_to_the_basic_trident_commission_by_peter_cannon.pdf
“ICBM’s in silos will not work as a deterrent, under any circumstances. It’s too easy to shut down. We don’t have enough room.
If it were true for us it would be true for the Israeli’s”
Wrong. This is covered under the section on threat evaluation. None of Israel’s potentially hostile enemies have the ability to blanket the area with nuclear silo killers due to lack of nuclear technology and number of warheads. Some of UK’s potential enemies do.
And you keep seeing conflict in terms of money. You simply don’t get the fact that emotion plays a part too, as in “F**K THE ECONOMY, JUST DIE YOU F**KING BASTARD!!” kind of emotion? You are aware I hope that some Chinese still hold a grudge over the Opium Wars and the loss of Hong Kong, and loss of Macau to “Western Imperialism” or even the more current view as the West obstructing their Manifest Destiny as the world’s greatest nation due to jealousy? Or Patten’s little games just before the 1998 handover? You use numbers and facts, but emotion has never let those stand in it’s way before. If it did, no one would get married. lol.
Just accept that there are situations where people do want to do the UK harm, and that the UK isn’t Israel and should find unique solutions to unique UK problems, not simply copy blindly.
Observer,
“None of Israel’s potentially hostile enemies have the ability to blanket the area with nuclear silo killers due to lack of nuclear technology and number of warheads”
— Russia is not exactly jumping into bed with Israel. And besides, the theme of much of this thread has been ‘you never know, contrived future scenario A could occur’, but suddenly Israel is immune to the growth in the numbers, range and capability of Iranian and Pakistani weapons? Okey doke.
“You use numbers and facts, but emotion has never let those stand in it’s way before. If it did, no one would get married. lol.”
— So the Chinese are going to bomb us, and allienate the primary market for their goods (Europe) over the Opium wars? Okey doke.
Emotion plays a part in rhetoric and menial policies that don’t change the landscape very much. When it comes down to business, political leaders of most persuasions tend to be a little more sound and rational.
“Just accept that there are situations where people do want to do the UK harm…”
— I think everyone accepts that. The suggestion that they will bluntly just reach for the nuclear option without weighing up a massive list of potential consequences is the bit that is far more open to debate.
“… and that the UK isn’t Israel and should find unique solutions to unique UK problems, not simply copy blindly”
— Ironic, given that I’m trying to analyse all of the various options at hand to figure out the merits and woes of each. I don’t think anyone wants to copy Israel, Israel is just a handy example of a country one tenth the size of ours that has found room for silo based weapons. That’s really the only reason I brought it up, because it illustrates the possibilities against a sea of negativity.
Any solution is worth looking at the land based silos mean a new missile, a missile we don’t have. It means siting them somewhere far enough from Greenpeace protesters and parish council planning objections, we just don’t have the space. This is before we even look at the threat assessment. They work for countries like Israel because they have large areas of desert and a more robust approach to demonstrators.
The submarine part of the cost of the whole lot is not the largest and would be offset by building a new missile and the storage, launch and command and control facilities.
So whilst we should never completely discount any option I think this was falls down pretty early on several factors
You could stick a Trident in silo without too much fuss. If you can get it in a sub, you can find a hole in the ground for it.
We have a whole bunch of current and past nuclear sites, plus a multitude of military bases.
F**k Greenpeace.
The submarine component is rated at around £15 billion of the £20 billion cost. That’s assuming it comes in on time and on budget (stop laughing).
“If you can get it in a sub, you can find a hole in the ground for it.”
You mean a hole in the ground that’s under water, right? ;)
Out of interest is this report from 2006 “Future of the United Kingdom’s Nuclear Deterrent” still relevant? Skimming it very fast, it had the lowest whole life cost for a submarine based deterrent, followed by a ship based one, then silo and then aircraft. Silo’s were rated as only providing a credible deterrent to limited nuclear powers (which does beg the question what happens to Israel if China decides the Middle East is their’s and Israel is surplus to requirements) and air launched was rejected due to need a lot of supporting infrastructure (like extra re-fueling aircraft) – see page 24 of
http://www.mod.uk/nr/rdonlyres/ac00dd79-76d6-4fe3-91a1-6a56b03c092f/0/defencewhitepaper2006_cm6994.pdf
@ admin – “They work for countries like Israel because they have large areas of desert and a more robust approach to demonstrators.”
And a more pervasive recognition of an existential threat on their doorstep!
One nasty idea I had when thinking about SSGNs was to provide a unmanned submerged floating raft to be towed 100km off the enemies coast and form a independent means of fire support.
Why not put (un- or thinly) manned submerged Trident-batteries into the Irish Sea?
TD said “Israel….large areas of desert”
Um…..
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9602103/HMS-Conquerors-biggest-secret-a-raid-on-Russia.html
If this story doesn’t blow your mind…
Also, ask yourself, would such a mission have been risked with a dual use SSN armed with nuclear weapons……………………
Not bad for 5000ton driven blind only guide by the likes of charts, dead reckoning, stop watches, magic electric gubbins, etc. etc.
I remember having to explain to my sister that the “driver” of the sub(marine) has no windows to look through. It was hard work. It was a good sequel to me having to explain to her that railway locomotives have no steering wheel…
“But keep talking about teleports and landscaping.”
The Israeli context is unique, I think you are barking up the wrong tree trying to compare ours and theirs.
Ignoring the Israeli’s for the moment.
I have not been even remotely convinced that there is another creditable option for our deterrent other than a dedicated SSBN.
If it could be shown there is, I’d go for it I really don’t care, all I care about is that a powerful, enormously expensive weapon system is functioning in the capacity it is most useful: deterrence.
Silo’s can be eliminated, the scale of the attack and so forth is irrelevant, the intellectual and practical point is that they give you a starting point to plan and initiate an attack. Neither of us knows the likelihood of this happening but I for one am not able to consider the risk acceptable considering the lead times for building an SSBN. And then we get onto their political cost – if we can’t build wind farms or a train track we are not going to get to build nuclear missile silo’s in Scotland, the North or Wales. End of. I simply cannot conceive of the Government even remotely getting away with it. The political risk of failure is just as real, probably more real than the hypothetical attack scenario.
FJ and cruise missile delivery is also not creditable as they are vulnerable to present day AD weapons.
Dual use SSNs? If you want to hobble our SSN fleet and just have them bob around in the middle of the Atlantic or whatever. They do get up to plenty of mischief which they would not be able to do if they were nuclear armed and one suspects, suspects, that SSBNs are different in many ways from SSNs and your hybrid would do neither job as well as the two seperate class types do.
Furthermore, Israel as said as a specific existential threat. It is horribly conceivable that she could face a land invasion. Now, if one has nuclear missile silo’s, and they are being over-run, what does one do with the missiles inside them? Think about how that reality constrains the options of potential aggressors – if you invade Israel you set off a trip wire, you remove all options from the Israeli’s as you threaten to over run their missiles, you make nuclear release completely inevitable as it is inconceivable they’d let you capture them. By having land based silo’s they have set up a creditable nuclear posture which is backed up by US SSBNs. Why on Earth would they divert resources to developing a nuclear SSBN when they don’t need to? It is a dangerous trip wire for sure, but in the event of a successful invasion Israel would face annihilation anyway.
If our nuclear weapons are intended to dissuade China from launching a first strike (a smoldering grudge over the Opium Wars or Hong Kong) then our present system is not fit for purpose.
The communists could come to the conclusion that if they kill 65 million Britons in a first strike, and we retaliate killing two or three times as many Chinese, China still wins the war.
@ Phil – “Also, ask yourself, would such a mission have been risked with a dual use SSN armed with nuclear weapons……………………”
Who said a dual-use SS(B)N would be carrying nukes when tasked with a non-deterrent task?
*confused*
Jedibeeftrix is *confused*
It’s Friday isn’t it? :)
@jedibeeftrix
Does the Other Guy know that it’s on a non-deterrent task?
That’s a stage on, how does he know it isn’t carrying missiles anyway?
What extra flexibility are you gaining from having a dual SSN? You have to keep some in reserve to ensure CASD, you cannot use the nuclear armed one for anything other than patrolling silently, nobody knows which of your SSNs is nuclear armed so popping up three miles from the coast of a super power is going to cause, shall we say, alarm and you have one class of boat that cannot do the SSBN job as well as an SSBN or the SSN job as well as an SSN because I would bet the farm that the designs are different and optimised for the different roles (silent, slow versus a far wider SSN performance envelope).
You gain no extra flexbility and lose capability and you confuse the issue over which sub is armed with nuclear weapons and which is not.
It’s a dumb idea and why nobody has done it. If you have dual SS(B)N you’ll end up with a de facto split amongst the two roles over the hulls anyway and you’d have lost efficiency and capability because the two different types of boat must be optimised for the different performance envelopes required for the two different roles.
“The communists could come to the conclusion that if they kill 65 million Britons in a first strike, and we retaliate killing two or three times as many Chinese, China still wins the war.”
You haven’t convinced me.
Phil,
I understand your point about the SSN/SSBN design overlap.
Surely though that’s only a problem if you’re still talking about ICBMs in the same vessel? If this is the case then yes, it’s a silly idea – they’re different designs for different physical launch mechanisms.
However, if we had only SSNs with both conventional and nuclear cruise missiles then inherently every single sub is a (smaller) deterrent. 7 Astute (2-3 in the sea) with up to 38 warheads each is still cause for concern.
Your point about the enemy’s alarm when they “pop up” is valid but surely they don’t “pop up”? I don’t think our SSNs when used in recent conflicts have ever “popped up” – could be wrong, I’m not a submariner.
I find the idea of basing our deterrent on cruise missiles to be even more unsound. They lack the range and are far more vulnerable to air defence networks than MIRVs. The lack of range means you would need more hulls to cover the same area and you’d still need to split your hull roles because you simply cannot countenance using nuclear armed subs for the kind of mad crazy stuff mentioned in the Telegraph link. I cannot see how you gain anything, you gain no more conventional force structure because you cannot swap roles and you still lose the optimization I imagine a dedicated SSBN has for its very particular performance needs.
As for popping up – I’m not imagining a submarine popping up for giggles, I’m imagining a submarine doing something sneaky like in the link and things going wrong and it being forced to surface. Imagine a nuclear cruise missile armed submarine surfacing in Cardigan Bay. A nuclear armed power, knowing you have cruise missiles that will be more effective the closer you are to the target set, will draw their own conclusions about why you are hiding so close to their coast.
By mixing these roles up I think you lose far more flexibility than you might gain and no larger a force structure. I know the Israeli’s do it but they have a very specific context which also involves having a non-denied policy of blackmailing the rest of the world with nuclear weapons so they don’t fall.
I completely agree that nuclear weapons lose all utility when launched, but they exist so as not to be launched and the more credible the threat posed by them the more leverage and margin you have to avoid crisis escalation and conflict.
In 1973 Israel readied nuclear weapons and essentially blackmailed the US into giving them extra supplies. A regional conflict could so easily have become a world war because Israel won’t die alone.
The fact that in 1982 a British SSN was used in the link above shows you how sensitive these issues become when tensions rise or are even at Cold War levels in the context of a non-specific background low level tension – imagine us doing that in October 1962 and getting caught…
The fact is at this moment we have a nuclear power, with a non or weakly denied policy of nuclear blackmail toward the rest of the world, worrying itself sick about another power, in desperate straights, getting the bomb and launching it at them. We are worried because that would then spread immediately with the US having to fall firmly on the side of Israel lest she unilaterally spread the nuclear lay-down which would see Russia having to fall onside with Iran or at least against the United States.
It is a really serious situation. I don’t think our diplomats and leaders could make it any clearer how dangerous they think the situation over Iran is. Everyone is worried they’ll do something stupid with the bomb and that will guarantee an Israeli response which would split the world. It’s the 1991 SCUD problem but with global ranged strategic nuclear weapons.
It’s a very frightening situation. And yet some on here think the nuclear bogeyman has gone away, even though its in our faces every week on the news.
This is turning into a Tuesday morning Security Studies seminar.
“You mean a hole in the ground that’s under water, right?” – dig a hole anywhere in Lancashire and I guarantee it will soon be full of water!
“F**k Greenpeace.” – are you French?
I agree with those that say a “dual-purpose” SS(B)N would make for a poor substitute of either type. I thought the original suggestion though was to adapt the Astute design into an SSBN, albeit with many fewer launch tubes, in order to avoid the costs of designing and building a new SSBN from scratch. It would still be a single use SSBN though. These boats would be in addition to the “vanilla” Astutes.
@ Phil – “nobody knows which of your SSNs is nuclear armed so popping up three miles from the coast of a super power is going to cause”
I accept that, as i do the point about non-specialised vessels, i was merely responding to your comment viz snippers:
“Also, ask yourself, would such a mission have been risked with a dual use SSN armed with nuclear weapons……………………”
the answer to which is yes.
“the answer to which is yes.”
Show me the evidence then otherwise you’re talking fresh air. I have argued that using a British SSN in that mission is evidence of quite how sensitive rummaging around someone’s coast line is. If a dual use SS(B)N was liable to be used in such missions we’d be doing that now with our SSBNs and I’d bet the farm again, that we have, and the US and Russians have, NEVER even considered such a role for their SSBNs.
Just saying yes doesn’t make it the answer unless you have some sort of knowledge on our SSBN taskings in which case one expects your reply in about 50 years after HM Pleasure.
“Silo’s can be eliminated, the scale of the attack and so forth is irrelevant,”
— Not really. It’s more than just a military question. If Russia really, really, really, wanted to take down our SSBN capability, irrespective of how much they showed their hand and how much effort it required, they could do it.
The scale of the attack absolutely equates into the deterrent. It’s the whole point of a deterrent, because it evokes images of a massive scale retaliation. The practical and political reality of the effort required to attack an enemy has to factor into the planning, otherwise it’s incomplete.
Nobody is going to push that button without covering all the bases. And no matter what your deterrent is, there will always be a starting point where people begin their planning.
“if we can’t build wind farms or a train track we are not going to get to build nuclear missile silo’s in Scotland, the North or Wales”
— Maybe not in Scotland, maybe not in Wales. But we routinely mow down areas of countryside for whatever our latest industrial project is. Do people complain? Of course they do, and in many cases they have a bloody good point. Do we go ahead and do what needs to be done anyway? Yes we do, which is why we’re seeing wind farms pop up in the valleys.
We have a multitude of sites to work with. I live about a mile as the crow flies from the old Bradwell power station, so that’s one. Sizewell. And there’s a number of other sites dotted around the country. We have army bases, Naval bases, Air Force bases. We have plenty of real estate to work with. You could build one of these sites in a somewhat remote area, and then set up a large exclusion zone/nature reserve around it. There’s a whole bunch of stuff you could do.
“FJ and cruise missile delivery is also not creditable as they are vulnerable to present day AD weapons”
— Fast jet a little more so, but cruise missiles have a bloody good track record against a variety of systems established as being the best of their day. And cruise missiles haven’t stopped moving. We’re already seeing with Storm Shadow that extra measures are being taken to shape them to make them less visible to radars.
And I only have to get one shot home, on top of all the other considerations. You have to be able to guarantee that you can stop them all. Nothing less than a 100% success rate for the defenders will fly. There’s no way you guarantee that.
The SSN can carry about their normal tasks as usual, and we could probably afford to build a few more, round the fleet out at around 10-12.
When you think about the Ohio class SSGN floating around, nobody knows whether they’re the cruise or nuclear armed versions. But I’ve yet to see anyone unleash a massive first strike against the Americans because a large submarine was floating around near their shore.
Not really. It’s more than just a military question. If Russia really, really, really, wanted to take down our SSBN capability, irrespective of how much they showed their hand and how much effort it required, they could do it.
err NO! They have neither the assets or expertise at the moment. It would take them weeks to just try and localise one SSBN, if they even managed that.
In the mean time we would? The US would, any search of that scale and the Russians do not have the assets would also disturb tyhe French and US deterent patrols.
When you think about the Ohio class SSGN floating around, nobody knows whether they’re the cruise or nuclear armed versions. But I’ve yet to see anyone unleash a massive first strike against the Americans because a large submarine was floating around near their shore.
It is widely known which Ohios have been converted and their movements are reported via NATO Submarine Op Authorities in the sae manner as SSNs.
“And no matter what your deterrent is, there will always be a starting point where people begin their planning.”
At the moment its 75% of the Earths surface, not Northumbria viewable on Google Earth.
Silo’s have numerous problems and offer precisely what advantages over SSBNs? They might be cheaper? I personally seriously doubt that when you factor in the infrastructure, the land purchases and the road network not to mention the costs of innumerable ordinary delays in such an project as well as the costs of the demonstrations, the political fall out and so forth. I really can’t believe you think we could sink silo’s into this country and nobody would really care all that much or actually be able to potentially stop it. What if they do stop it – what if the Government falls over the matter and the SSBN plans are that much less mature and we are facing a gap in our deterrent? Suddenly hasn’t worked out any cheaper. I can talk about France, France already had 50 odd silo’s ready made to go, yet decommissioned them and kept SSBNs. The US continues to hold lower stocks of ICBMs than SLBMs and has always emphasised SLBMs over ICBMs as soon as the technology allowed.
Silo’s are risky militarily, far, far riskier politically and would realistically fail to be built. I wouldn’t want them built near me and I support the deterrent.
Chris
Cruise missiles do have an excellent track record.
But Russian fear of them was primarily based on their use as a first strike weapon.
Everyone knows what a ballistic missile means and they aint exactly hard to spot.
Cruise missiles, well, is it a bird, is it a plane, is it a nuclear weapon.
But if you were on the look out for cruise missiles, and the skies were empty, say, because you had just obliterated the UK in a nuclear first strike, well, how many nuclear cruise missiles could we loft, and how many could be knocked down?
Does A – B = Acceptable losses?
To You?
To Assad?
Hiroshima is a thriving city with over a million residents
“They have neither the assets or expertise at the moment. It would take them weeks to just try and localise one SSBN, if they even managed that.”
— I’m not saying it wouldn’t cause a stir, but if we’re just purely talking about military capability I’d imagine that they could throw every asset they have into the task. Thinking we could hide from the entire all out effort of the Russians seems a little optimisitc.
“It is widely known which Ohios have been converted and their movements are reported via NATO Submarine Op Authorities in the sae manner as SSNs.”
— And you share that real time information with whom? The Chinese? The Iranians? Can an Iranian naval commander call NATO and request the very latest updated positions of all the SSGN’s? If not then it’s irrelevant.
“At the moment its 75% of the Earths surface”
— Except that it’s not is it.
“I personally seriously doubt that when you factor in the infrastructure, the land purchases and the road network not to mention the costs of innumerable ordinary delays in such an project as well as the costs of the demonstrations, the political fall out and so forth.”
— You don’t have to purchase land that you already own, land that is already connected to the road network.
“I really can’t believe you think we could sink silo’s into this country and nobody would really care all that much or actually be able to potentially stop it”
— Of course people would care. But not enough people would care, especially if it’s not being built in their back yard. And if we’re talking national security, you really think a few Greenpeace protesters tying themselves to trees are going to stop that?
So you’re telling me all Greenpeace has to do is park a decommissioned fishing trawler or whatever in the path of the submarines, sink a few obstacles and that’s that, the government would just roll over and give in to the pressure? Or would they forcibly remove the protesters?
“The US continues to hold lower stocks of ICBMs than SLBMs and has always emphasised SLBMs over ICBMs as soon as the technology allowed”
— So earlier you were complaining about making comparisons to Israel, ‘It’s not realistic etc’, and now you’re comparing our system to the system of a nation with a $550 billion defence budget, a population 7 times the size of ours etc.
Make your mind up.
Personally I think this has become a worthless debate. There are other options. Even RUSI went into some detail about a number of other options that it felt were viable. There’s plenty of discussion to be had and most of the counter arguments against some of the other alternatives are questionable at best (we can and have built nuclear power plants, many of them, but apparently missile silos would never, ever in a million years get passed and it would be impossible to even try? Give me a break).
From what I can tell those of you who want the SSBN renewed want it done so without any question or investigation into alternatives. It’s pointless to even debate this with you.
“Thinking we could hide from the entire all out effort of the Russians seems a little optimisitc.”
Not really. The US Navy conducted exercises off the Soviet coast in the Cold War undetected – not subs, but CVBGs. It’s perfectly possible and realistic to hide an SSBN somewhere in the worlds Oceans. One thing I am sure we agree on is that it is not possible to hide a silo.
“You don’t have to purchase land that you already own, land that is already connected to the road network.”
Right, so you think silo’s can just be plonked hither and tither wherever the Government happens to have a handy plot of land in a remote area?
“But not enough people would care,”
I think that your thinking is pie in the sky. I can easily see sinking silo’s into the UK becoming an election issue. But I guess we won’t agree on that. Nuclear weapons are very different in people’s minds from nuclear reactors and I think that it wouldn’t be fringe groups opposing but a good segment of society. No Government could stand that kind of public pressure and be legitimate in a democratic society.
“So you’re telling me all Greenpeace has to do is park a decommissioned fishing trawler or whatever in the path of the submarines, sink a few obstacles and that’s that, the government would just roll over and give in to the pressure?”
There’s a big difference between the continued operation of an asset which by precedent and several elections has been legitimised and a democratic government facing opposition from a central part of society over a new development in nuclear weapons sighting.
“So earlier you were complaining about making comparisons to Israel, ‘It’s not realistic etc’, and now you’re comparing our system to the system of a nation with a $550 billion defence budget, a population 7 times the size of ours etc.”
I’m pointing out that perhaps SLBMs have many advantages over ICBMs and not being privy to any real studies I am inferring that the US warhead balance perhaps reflects the advantages of SLBMs over ICBMs. I never compared. I might be wrong but France is in a very similar context as ours and as I have argued they have forgone ready in place missile silo’s in favour of further SLBM and SSBN development. I am saying there’s something in it.
“There are other options.”
I never said there weren’t. I have said very clearly that I don’t believe any of them offer the same level of assurance and credibility and I am arguing my case. Seems quite normal for an internet discussion.
“From what I can tell those of you who want the SSBN renewed want it done so without any question or investigation into alternatives.”
I clearly said in black and white I don’t care how the deterrent is deployed as long as it maximises its capabilities and utility. You have argued for silo’s or cruise missiles and I have argued that I feel they offer no advantage and several massive disadvantages.
“It’s pointless to even debate this with you.”
But you’re down the rabbit hole now!
This is an interesting piece posted on the Lib Dem Voice post thread. Even if you don’t agree with it, it has some interesting information and figures:
http://www.york.ac.uk/media/politics/documents/research/Continuitychange.pdf
I’m not saying it wouldn’t cause a stir, but if we’re just purely talking about military capability I’d imagine that they could throw every asset they have into the task. Thinking we could hide from the entire all out effort of the Russians seems a little optimisitc.
The atlantic ocean cover approximately 20% of the earths surface. finding an SSBN in that area would take 4 russian fleets with nothing left to cover the next one we deploy based upon their actions. Not to mention the French and the US.
“It is widely known which Ohios have been converted and their movements are reported via NATO Submarine Op Authorities in the sae manner as SSNs.”
– And you share that real time information with whom? The Chinese? The Iranians? Can an Iranian naval commander call NATO and request the very latest updated positions of all the SSGN’s? If not then it’s irrelevant.
There are only 4 boats involved and the idea of the conventional type threat they offer means that there general Op area is not clouded in secrecy.
From what I can tell those of you who want the SSBN renewed want it done so without any question or investigation into alternatives. It’s pointless to even debate this with you.
No Chris, i am pretty relaxed about whether or not we go like for like as long as HMG realise that no alternative offers the same level of deterence.
there have been numerous investigations by people who have access to the the classified facts and they all come to the same conclusion.
You don’t need the secret squirrel stuff to come to the logic decision that a submarine based deterrent is the only option for the UK. The arguments were done and dusted in the 1960s.
Re: Needing water filled holes
Trident uses a buoyancy launch approach for initial boost and righting.
Re: Building silos’s anywhere
The Uk is only 2.27% urbanised.
Re: Nuclear cruise missiles
They don’t have anywhere near the range or the warheads for the task. If we’re only going to have a few, they may as well be really good, tritium boosted ones.
Besides, do you want a tactical WMD or a deterrent? I’d rather the latter.
Re: SSBN/SSN mix vs a fleet of Fighter Bomber SSBGN’s
My boat’s out on this one (if you pardon the accidental pun).
I am concerned over two aspects:
– The unknown effect of not knowing which SSBGN is the deterrent or not;
– Affect on effectiveness of a hybrid design;
This is balanced by two further points:
– @APATS noted that the OHIO’s seem to be functioning fine as SSBGN’s and we’re still here;
– ASTUTE is huge compared to the TRAFALGAR.
EDIT: For the record I favour a deterrent and believe that deterrent should be CASD. I’m unsure as to whether the CASD should be a dedicated SSBN or the suggested SSBGN.
TOC,
I did highlight how they operate and classify the SSBGN differently from the SSBN though.
SSGN are nuclear “arsenal” ships that just happen to be able to submerge. Let’s not carried away with the idea that the US is/was trailing the SSGN as an alternative to the SSBN. The USN are just reusing an expensive platform.
Who would nuke Britain?
Well anyone bearing a grudge over wars from the last 200 years. That includes France, Spain, USA, Russia, Afghanistan, South Africa, Germany, Iraq, North Korea, Egypt, Argentina, Serbia, Libya, plus the forgotten stuff like Malaysia, Indonesia, Oman, Belize & others.
In a nuclear war between China & the UK, China wins. True, but China would be weakened & therefore easy meat, for another nuclear predator.
If you think the UK can’t mortally wound China, then you’re clearly picking from the wrong list of retaliatory strike targets.
(And those are just the Ports.)
The Israelis are peddling the theory that Iran (certain factions in) want to start WW3 to summon the Hidden Imam.
TOC,
I see seven warheads worth of irradiated no go areas!
Simple. Drop a string of groundburst warheads along the Yellow and Yangste Rivers to irradiate a huge water source. And air burst some over the A country administrative centres thus causing the less urbanised and rural B country to fail thus enduring the end of China as a functioning nation until at least one horrific civil war.
Not that I advocate such an approach. Merely showing how nuclear targeteers work.
Indeed.
And underlines how effective the deterrent can be.
If a country the size of the UK can cripple a country the size of China…. well shouldn’t we all be friends instead?
Or invite them to join the euro.
As I understand the 4 boat CASD system, we have one boat heading out, one heading in, with one in refit and one spare, in case the one to head out can’t (e.g. mechanical failure). Presumably the spare also fulfills the training need?
Some commentators have said the adoption of the PWR3 reactor for the new boats would alleviate the need for long refits, thus making it practicable to continue CASD with just three boats, an obvious saving. However, some comments above have highlighted scenarios where we would want to have two boats deployed at once. Would this still be possible with three boats?
Refuelling a reactor is a huge task. But beyond that submarines are just extremely complex. 3 boats wouldn’t be a good idea. Back in 1960s the original plan was to have 5 (five) R-boats to maintain CASD. Technology has moved on but that also brings complexity which can lead to other failures.
Tightly coupled, complex and opaque technological systems will inevitably suffer failure according to some theorists.
Wise ape, The crew train on their own boat we have survived since the first refit of Vanguard with 3 boats, i have witnessed the Gold crew boat(one of 4 has a single crew), deploy and then deploy again due to tech difficulties.
A major threat to the UK would see people go the extra yard.
“But you’re down the rabbit hole now!”
— True,
“The US Navy conducted exercises off the Soviet coast in the Cold War undetected – not subs, but CVBGs”
— Were the Soviets expending every resource available to find them? If not it’s a comparison of limited utility.
“Right, so you think silo’s can just be plonked hither and tither wherever the Government happens to have a handy plot of land in a remote area?”
— You’ve got eleven power stations, 64 RAF Stations, 10 Royal Navy bases that could be jigged, god knows how many other army bases, plus a significant government estate holding. I’m pretty sure you could find room in there somewhere.
“I think that your thinking is pie in the sky. I can easily see sinking silo’s into the UK becoming an election issue”
— I strongly doubt that.
“I have said very clearly that I don’t believe any of them [alternatives] offer the same level of assurance and credibility…” “You have argued for silo’s or cruise missiles and I have argued that I feel they offer no advantage and several massive disadvantages”
— But that’s not the only issue. The fact is the treasury has made the economics of the system into a debating point. If the treasury took the cost into a special pot of money, treated it as a national asset, then beyond commissioning a deep study into alternatives I’d mostly just say “screw it, keep the SSBN’s”.
But the government has turned this into a financial issue as much as just a pure survival issue.
“The atlantic ocean cover approximately 20% of the earths surface. finding an SSBN in that area would take 4 russian fleets with nothing left to cover the next one we deploy based upon their actions”
— Except there are large areas of it near the coasts that and some shipping lanes that are off limits. So it’s not even 20%. And with the slow movement of the ship to avoid making too much noise and the length of the patrol considered, the range comes down even more.
Again, I’m not suggesting for a second that this is easy, that the Russiand just waltz into the Atlantic and 10 minutes later they call back to base “found it!”.
But if they – for whatever incredibly contrived reason – were planning a first strike on the UK, for something of that magnitude they would undoubtedly plan in advance, gather intelligence, go drop some sonar buoys in the Atlantic and conduct some “exercises” as they planned their build up.
It just seems odd to me, having lectured so many people about not taking things for granted, that you’re taking this for granted. Nearly 30 attack submarines, granted in varying states of repair. I wouldn’t be that cocky about it.
“There are only 4 boats involved and the idea of the conventional type threat they offer means that there general Op area is not clouded in secrecy.”
— That doesn’t answer the question. If the Achmedinnerjacket rings up NATO headquarters are you going to tell him where all the SSGN and SSBN are? Did NATO tell Gaddafi? Before attacking Iraq in ’91 and ’03, did the US DoD phone ahead and tell Saddam which B-1’s, B-2’s, B-52’s around the world were carrying conventional weapons and which were nuclear armed?
The only people who really have anything to fear from a ship or aircraft carrying nuclear or conventional weapons are people in possession of such weapons themselves who suspect a strike may be on the way. As long as we don’t start randomnly shooting cruise missiles at Moscow, Beijing or Islamabad then I think we may get away without starting world war 3.
“Trident uses a buoyancy launch approach for initial boost and righting”
— I’m pretty sure we have enough smart people in the country to solve a problem like that.
“The Uk is only 2.27% urbanised”
— And? Unless you’re planning to put one in the middile of a market square I don’t see how that’s especially relevant. I think it’s something like 70% of the English land mass that’s within 1 mile of the road network.
“They [cruise missiles] don’t have anywhere near the range or the warheads for the task. If we’re only going to have a few, they may as well be really good, tritium boosted ones. Besides, do you want a tactical WMD or a deterrent? I’d rather the latter,”
— You could hit St. Petersburg from the English Channel if you really wanted. And tactical? The TLAM-N carries a warhead twenty times more powerful than the one dropped on Hiroshima. That’s a little more than ‘tactical’. That’s ‘yo city gon burn’ type power.
“Who would nuke Britain? Well anyone bearing a grudge over wars from the last 200 years”
— Are you serious? What about us? Are we going to nuke the United States because David Cameron is upset about us losing the revolutionary war? Are we going to nuke India because they declared their independence? What about South Africa, are we going to to nuke them for the same? Why don’t we nuke Germany, after all the shit they’ve caused us. I mean hey, they don’t have any nuclear weapons to fire back, which makes us more likely to do it, right?
I dunno, I just think some people talk about nuclear weapons like every nation hostile to the UK is sitting with its finger on a trigger just looking for an excuse to fire them.
Firing a nuclear weapon, whether its a full on assault or a ‘tactical’ strike, is not a matter that’s decided over morning coffee. Doing so basically guarantees that your country will have to stand on its on for the next 25-50 years. It means you’re incredibly likely to be fired upon in return by any of the holding nations. And it basically guarantees a revenge strike of some form.
If you’re the leader of a nuclear nation then ordering a limited strike is basically ordering yourself to spend the rest of your life imprisoned for fear of a revenge killing. You’ve almost guaranteed that your nation is going to spend the next 20 years coming under unconventional attack.
You have absolutely no chance of guaranteeing that attacking a nation with bombs in storage will destory those weapons, and now you have to smother your own borders and entry points with forces, because otherwise you’re going to have a bomb detonated in the middile of one of your cities.
This is not a decision that can be made casually. The possibilities of such a strike are incredibly small. For all his guff, dinnerjacket is smart enough to realise that a bomb is a only a defensive weapon for him. If he fires it, it’s all over. All his ambitions about becoming a regional power are done, dusted, forget it.
Should we stop him acquiring the bomb? Yes we should, as we should try to prevent any other circumstance of proliferation. But the likelyhood he would actually use it is slim. And the idea Britain will fall off some imaginery security cliff by giving up the bomb? Unlikely too.
“The Israelis are peddling the theory that Iran (certain factions in) want to start WW3 to summon the Hidden Imam”
— After the last ‘elections’ in Iran, some of the opposition were screaming ‘Death to Russia’. I don’t think Moscow is losing too much sleep over this.
Clearly a Friday night.
Chris B
If you are that sure of the future, give me next weeks lottery numbers.
I wonder if the Israelis will attack Iran in that handover period the Americans have between election & inaugeration?
I think when discussing nuclear weapons you have to face, for want of a better word, the horrors of it all. By definition the discussion has to be quite deep or its a pointless endeavour.
Yes, I agree that any scenario other than Iran which involves us is a convoluted artificial mechanism at present. But my argument is things change, and they have in the past changed dramatically and old allies have become new enemies and vice versa. Thus we need a reliable and dependable deterrent which is renewed on time. I personally think, and we’re not going agree, that sinking nuclear missiles into UK soil requires more thought than plonking them in whatever bit of MoD land is handy and I personally believe it would develop into an election issue.
So I think silo’s are militarily unreliable and politically unreliable.
As for the US CVBG. It is surprisingly easy (relatively speaking) to hide even a surface action group and also to launch strikes from that group without being tracked. For a vessel who’s only purpose is to creep along at an ideal speed, at ideal depths, performing to the strengths and weakness of the system, it is going to be even easier to hide. Especially in the worlds oceans.
e atlantic ocean cover approximately 20% of the earths surface. finding an SSBN in that area would take 4 russian fleets with nothing left to cover the next one we deploy based upon their actions”
– Except there are large areas of it near the coasts that and some shipping lanes that are off limits. So it’s not even 20%. And with the slow movement of the ship to avoid making too much noise and the length of the patrol considered, the range comes down even more.
Again, I’m not suggesting for a second that this is easy, that the Russiand just waltz into the Atlantic and 10 minutes later they call back to base “found it!”.
But if they – for whatever incredibly contrived reason – were planning a first strike on the UK, for something of that magnitude they would undoubtedly plan in advance, gather intelligence, go drop some sonar buoys in the Atlantic and conduct some “exercises” as they planned their build up.
It just seems odd to me, having lectured so many people about not taking things for granted, that you’re taking this for granted. Nearly 30 attack submarines, granted in varying states of repair. I wouldn’t be that cocky about it.
I base my estimate on bitter personal experience of how difficult it is to find a submarine in my AOR, let alone when it has the entire Atlantic to hide in.
As for shipping lanes and coastal areas if the water is deep enough why not? The choice is up to the SSBN CO. Patrol length woulod become irrelevant at the point of an entire Russian deployment, they are only constrained by food.
“There are only 4 boats involved and the idea of the conventional type threat they offer means that there general Op area is not clouded in secrecy.”
– That doesn’t answer the question. If the Achmedinnerjacket rings up NATO headquarters are you going to tell him where all the SSGN and SSBN are? Did NATO tell Gaddafi? Before attacking Iraq in ’91 and ’03, did the US DoD phone ahead and tell Saddam which B-1′s, B-2′s, B-52′s around the world were carrying conventional weapons and which were nuclear armed
USS Florida transited the STROG on the surface sending a clear message to Qaddafi, the last SSGN deployed to the Gulf made a clearly visible Suez transit.
Only managed a quick scan over this so apologies if I repeat points made by others but two things come to mind:
a) Israel has, or has at least put work into, a second strike nuclear capability on its SSKs based on a cruise missile system. The system may be publically unacknowledged, but, Israeli attempts to acquire TLAM are well recorded. That alone speaks to their awareness of the vulnerability of a solely land-based solution.
b) The £20bn, or whatever it is for Trident – the Second Coming, is going to be spent mostly where?. The, frankly one-eyed, Bradford article linked above indicates our contribution to the Common Missile Bay and associated design bits and bobs comes in at about £1bn which will head over the Atlantic. I didnt see the cost of the missiles listed, but, its still leaving something like 90% of that money going back into our economy and, in fact, supporting our high-tech manufacturing sector. Why is that a bad thing again?. How much was it we dropped into the banking sector to keep that going again?!.
Doesnt the investment in the Trident successor hull also have knock-on benefits for the Future SSN programme as well i.e if we keep sub design going at Barrow we dont have to buy our next Fleet subs from the Yanks…something that would see large piles of our cash disappearing overseas?!
@APATS – So 3-boat CASD is do-able, thanks.
UK land based silos would make a very tempting target for terrorists, as would the convoys moving the warheads and fuel around. Then there’s the people – and their families – based at the sites. Security is starting to look a bit pricey, isn’t it?
Who says Russia/China/Narnia would have to launch their own I/SLBMs at us to take out our deterrent? Imagine someone letting dirty bombs off near the silo sites so no one can enter them for a few hundred years. No, if you’re going to have a credible deterrent it needs to be out of reach of a potential adversary. Israel, like the French, Russians, Chinese and Americans, are spreading their deterrence among different delivery systems; I’m sure we would do the same if politicians were prepared to provide the funds. Crazy as it sounds, CASD is probably the cheaper option. We are unique among the major nuclear powers in relying on one delivery system.
Anything is doable. Whether it is right or not is another matter.
To avoid the vulnerability of fixed silos and cruise missiles, what we need is a doomsday machine; triggered automatically in the event of an attack and at the same time impossible to untrigger. It’s the only 100% deterrent.
@Brian Black – I thought you preferred bombers?
The obvious problem with a doomsday device (beyond who would you trust with it) is, to use layman’s terms, the nutter. The sort of nutter who is anxious to meet his maker or claim his 40 virgins. Or a nutter with a fall out shelter. Or just tin foil on his head.
All of the intricate talk boils down to this…..
If you have the cash and the political will then you can’t beat a bit of CASD, it’s the only infallible/deadly effective system to have.
The only other viable (albeit difficult) alternative is adapted cruise missiles which offer flexibility and still pack a considerable punch.
The only three relevant and interesting questions are…..
1. Are we prepared to pay for a Vanguard replacement and the whistles and bells capability as a whole?
2. Even if we are do we really need such a comprehensive and deadly system to keep a credible threat and the political leverage that nuclear weapons bring?
3. If we had a cruise missile option what would the savings be and can the difficulties of a radically different system be overcome?
The one advantage I can see in the cruise missile option is its adaptability. We could spread the deterrent among different delivery systems – sub/ship/land/air launched. In tandem, we upgrade our conventional capability.
Challenger,
If we’re talking £20b for Trident (£15b subs + £5b missiles) then building another 5 Astute will cost £5b add a nuclear version of a boosted Storm Shadow (or similar) at £5b and you’ve saved £10b which will pay for a decent fleet of F35 that can also deliver the same missile if push came to shove.
All guesses of course ;-)
@Simon
Well by all accounts we are talking at 20+ billion for Trident!
We know that 5 more Astute’s (and we should really have 12 anyway) would as you say cost roughly 5 billion. Id say a decent fleet of F35 is around 100, and yeah we need the cash to pay for that, plus it would bring some great flexibility if we had an air launched missile as a contingency.
The only variable really is the cost and complexity of an adapted cruise missile (whether it’s Storm Shadow, Perseus or any other).
I agree it’s all guess work and a bit of a risky path to go down. However id still say it looks cheaper than trident and is a feasible alternative.
It’s just whether we want/can accept abandoning CASD in favour of a less rigid approach.
Of course, we could interpret CASD to include carriers with aircraft armed with nuclear tipped missiles, or even plain old bombs (like France/USA). So, build more carriers! :-) Of course, we’d also need the proper escort elements, including more SSNs, all of which would beef up our conventional forces as well. Let the RAF own the aircraft, to be operated from land as well, so the bill for the deterrent is more evenly spread.
Feasible alternative? Utter bollocks.
You’re happy to pay £5b for a system with 15% of the range, a subsonic velocity and a fraction of the warhead yield?
Scary deterrent? Naive if you think so.
By comparison Trident D5 today can hit you at 13,000mph from 7,000 miles away, delivering up to 12 (restricted by treaty to 4 or 5) Tritium boosted 100 kt MIRV warheads with full decoy suites as the likely UK armament.
You have no idea where the launch site is and you’ve got at most around 30 minutes from the start of your ill-conceived offensive to check with your family that they’re in the shelter and that you love them before their world and yours, as they know it, ends.
That class of retaliatory weapon scares the shit out of me. Get rid of that and the Other Guy breathes a little easier.
If you’re in the deterrent camp, then you have to go all-in.
Don’t fuck around with half-arsed measures, we’re messing with God-awful weapon systems that we hope we never have to use. Weapons of the kind that a mere handful of strategically placed strike zones means the end significant agriculture, commerce and habitation for thousands of miles of land. Thousands.
A couple of piss-ant cruise missiles by comparison are going to tempt someone to do something stupid such as use them tactically or keep them in a cupboard. Even worse, they might not put off the Other Guy from doing something really stupid.
The country can afford to replace CASD. £50b or even £100b over it’s lifetime is a drop in the annual GDP ocean especially as major programmes such as CVF will have delivered before the first major fund commit is required.
With the US facing the fiscal cliff & as they have the triad, maybe they would look at stretched Virginia with Trident C4 NG. Saves developing a dedicated SSBN class.
Would let the UK have a stretched Astute carrying 8 C4 NG. Probably no more than twice the price of a normal Astute.
With some of the change, a tactical nuke F-35 capability. The UK 100 kt Trident warhead is rumoured to make a “clean” tactical 10 kt if you remove the fusion boost. So a 10kt tactical warhead in a 500lb bomb body,Diamondback wing kit + JDAM guidance all fitting nicely in a F-35B bomb bay.
So UK deterrent would be AstuteXL/C4 for “end of World” CASD, + F-35B/10 kt stand-off bomb for tactical use (deterring against dirty bombs/chemical & biological attack).
An American economy soon to be buoyed by LNG exports and the surprising growing trend for US companies to bring jobs home means the US economic outlook isn’t as a gloomy as it appeared only a few years back. The concern here is an isolationist America choosing it fights more carefully. This wouldn’t necessarily mean a reduction in the US defence establishment; it only costs when it goes to war. Nor does it necessarily a mean a reduction in nuclear forces. Once more more for those struggling to grasp the fact NUCLEAR WEAPONS ARE CHEAP. Even though the US will bare the majority of the deterrent replacement programme it will still be only a small percentage of their overall defence costs. Further there are other juicy savings to be had in other parts of the US defence establishment……..
@John Hartley – Just to clarify, these “stretched Astutes” would be “as well as” the usual SSN Astutes yes, or are you proposing a dual-use boat?
@The Other Chris – “By comparison Trident D5 today can hit you at 13,000mph from 7,000 miles away, delivering up to 12 (restricted by treaty to 4 or 5) Tritium boosted 100 kt MIRV warheads with full decoy suites as the likely UK armament.” – Please explain how all of this deters a lone nutter in a transit van, which is surely a more likely scenario than your state on state scenario.
“If you’re in the deterrent camp, then you have to go all-in.” – I can understand your point of view, just don’t happen to agree with it. Odd that everyone considers Iran such a threat, and yet they don’t have any SSBNs. Nor North Korea. Nor Israel.
Edit
@X – ” Further there are other juicy savings to be had in other parts of the US defence establishment” – I hope you don’t mean Solomon’s beloved Marine armoured vehicles?
Looks like the only viable options are really…
Sub CASD ICBM – which is going to cost £20b.
Sub CASD cruise – which is likely to cost £10b.
The annoying thing is the knock on effect of the second option. I really like the idea of 12 Astute (some nuclear, some not) but as Challenger (and many others) has said is it really worth the saving?
I’m struggling to decide.
Originally I was very pro-cruise, then (reading most of this) I drifted to the pro-ICBM (I didn’t tell anyone though), but if you look to the future I really don’t see a big threat from MIRV re-entry vehicles. 20 years ago we couldn’t shoot an Exocet out of the air – we can now with either CIWS or Aster/Ceptor. I’d guess that if we really put our minds to it we could render ICBMs obsolete with a decent missile defence screen. As soon as you do this, every nuclear power would have to fall-back to nuclear-cruise anyway.
The thing is that this missile defence screen may well come about from an internationally funded, comet/meteor defence system, that will have to deal with much higher speed atmospheric entry than any MIRV.
–> Greenpeace might win in the end!
SeaWolf block 0 was knocking 4.5 shells doing speeds well in excess of those of an Exocet out of the sky well over 20 years ago…….
Cruise isn’t option.
“Please explain how all of this deters a lone nutter in a transit van, which is surely a more likely scenario than your state on state scenario.”
By definition a ‘nutter’ is not going to be rational enough to be deterred by anything. Does that mean we scrap all Chally’s, Apaches, Tornadoes and in fact every other conventional weapon…..as they offer no defense against Ford-deployed sociopaths?.
…or do you accept that some jobs are the preserve of specific systems?. In this case the job is preventing political coercion and acquiescence of HM Govt under threat of someone elses nuclear weapons. To prevent that intolerable situation requires an uninterceptable method of placing a nuclear detonation somewhere the opposition would feel it meaningfully. Note the use of the word uninterceptable.
With the current state of the art a ballistic RV is the closest thing we can get to a guarantee of placing the warhead on target. That is indisputable. So the only remaining questions are ones of throw-weight, range and deployment platform.
For my money there is beauty in redundancy. For me a ‘Midgetman’ type SICBM that can be dense packed in a couple of ‘universal’ SSN launcher tubes as detailed earlier and, on a common missile, air-deployed LRALT-style out of a C-17 is the way forward. Essentially then every suitably outfitted UK SSN and any airfield capable of operating Globemaster becomes deterrent capable…including, if it could be kept covert, Mount Pleasant. The task of the aggressor, to remove all of our retaliatory capability, would be remarkably challenging. It also means that CASD could be gapped especially if a few more C-17’s could be bought with the savings on a dedicated bomber sub.
I think we should be wary of using Trident as the standard for our deterrent. Polaris and the R-boats were considered more than capable for a deterrent. We went with Trident because the US did, changing from C4 to D5 because the US did. The decision was based on reducing costs by sharing the same system as the Yanks. Any improvements in range and number of warheads was purely coincidental.
Do we need an deterrent that can idenpendanly deter Russia? I think that answer is no we can leave that to the NATO level as ever one else does.
If we accept that and add abmd to type 45 then all other options are viable. The chair of the defence select committee recently said Trident is ‘less effective’ after Cold War after all.
x,
I wasn’t so much supporting the cruise option as denouncing the guaranteed strike capability of MIRVs.
Very interested about the effectiveness of Sea Wolf – do you have any links or videos?
In my personal opinion, long term, ie post Successor, we should be looking at fielding a proper, in-depth ABM system at which point I would expect costs to have come down and the technology matured further. At this point I would support the decommissioning of the CASD capability for something akin to a land based, mobile long range cruise missile capability because our ABM defences would buy us time and ensure we retain a retaliatory capability with a smaller nuclear weapon stockpile. Hopefully this would also trigger an ABM arms race thus seeing funds diverted from nuclear weapons.
My aspiration anyway.
“Please explain how all of this deters a lone nutter in a transit van, which is surely a more likely scenario than your state on state scenario.”
How many nutters do you know with a nuclear bomb? Iran is a nation state and is having a time of it building a bomb – do you think someone can just knock one up in his shed / cave?
@ JH,
“If you are that sure of the future, give me next weeks lottery numbers”
— And share my top prize? I don’t think so.
Look, we can’t absolutely guarantee the future, but we can use things like geography, social studies, political analysis and objective reasoning to roughly predict trends. People often highlight failures because they have spectacular results, but don’t highlight the baulk of the correct analysis that simply goes unnoticed.
@ Phil,
“Yes, I agree that any scenario other than Iran which involves us is a convoluted artificial mechanism at present”
— I’d rate Iran higher than I would Russia, though still unlikely. But this is the key of cost benefit analysis. How likely is an event to actually occur and how much does it cost us to protect against it? If we had a much bigger pot of money to play with, I’d say there would be no question. We would renew Trident and there wouldn’t be a second thought about it.
The times have changed for us. We’re a lot poorer now and we live in, lets face it, a much more stable, predictable and safer world.
@ APATS,
“USS Florida transited the STROG on the surface sending a clear message to Qaddafi, the last SSGN deployed to the Gulf made a clearly visible Suez transit”
— Did he see it? Did anyone call him to let him know? Did anyone call Saddam before both gulf wars to let him know it was ok, just conventional weapons on their way? Unless that happened then much of the worry surrounding dual use systems falls flat on its face.
@ Jonesy,
“I didnt see the cost of the missiles listed, but, its still leaving something like 90% of that money going back into our economy and, in fact, supporting our high-tech manufacturing sector. Why is that a bad thing again?.”
— That rather assumes that a) all that money goes back into our economy (a portion gets syphoned off by BAE shareholders abroad) b) that the technology has a value outside of this project and c) that the money wouldn’t be spent elsewhere by government, also being put into the UK economy.
@ WiseApe,
“Who says Russia/China/Narnia would have to launch their own I/SLBMs at us to take out our deterrent? Imagine someone letting dirty bombs off near the silo sites so no one can enter them for a few hundred years”
— That’s a lot of dirty bombs. And what stops them doing that to Faslane? If we’re going that route we could get into all sorts of bizarre, Tom Clancy scenarios where a jihadist/spy etc manages to get recruited by the RN and ends up on one of the boats, in charge of the torpedos in the middile of the Atlantic.
@ The Other Chris,
“You’re happy to pay £5b for a system with 15% of the range, a subsonic velocity and a fraction of the warhead yield?”
— This is not a game of top trumps. It doesn’t really matter how much total yield you put down. 200 kilotons is enough to kill half a million people at least. That’s one shot. Deterrent at a quarter of the price? It’s worth strong consideration.
“You have no idea where the launch site is and you’ve got at most around 30 minutes from the start of your ill-conceived offensive to check with your family that they’re in the shelter and that you love them before their world and yours, as they know it, ends”
— Minor point, but why wouldn’t you put your family in the shelter before firing, being as you’re launching the first strike?
Regardless, the missiles are supposedly not kept at immediate readiness anymore. Could take hours, days even, to get the counter strike organised.
“If you’re in the deterrent camp, then you have to go all-in.”
— Not really. You need to go only so far as to deter.
“A couple of piss-ant cruise missiles by comparison are going to tempt someone to do something stupid such as use them tactically or keep them in a cupboard. Even worse, they might not put off the Other Guy from doing something really stupid”
— We have ‘tactical’ warheads on the SSBN. I haven’t seen a tactical strike yet. A cruise missile with the power to kill half a million people is not exactly going to be treated as a toy.
@ x
“Once more more for those struggling to grasp the fact NUCLEAR WEAPONS ARE CHEAP”
— There’s nothing cheap about £2 billion a year. This is precisely how governments end up in the shit, because a cheap £2billion here and a cheap £2 billion there suddenly ends up morphing into several billion quids worth of over spend.
@ WiseApe,
“Odd that everyone considers Iran such a threat, and yet they don’t have any SSBNs. Nor North Korea. Nor Israel”
— Iran doesn’t even have a bomb yet. But don’t tell anyone, because apparently anything less than an SSBN and nobody takes you seriously.
@ Simon,
“Greenpeace might win in the end!”
— Greenpeace shall be crushed beneath the boot of the mighty British Empire. Mwwhahahahaha!
@ X
“Cruise isn’t [an] option”
— This keeps propping up, but it’s complete bullshit. The real world evidence that we have to date suggests completely the opposite; that if you can shoot down any more than 10% of the cruise missiles fired at you then you’re doing really bloody well.
And in conventional terms, shooting down 9/10 cruise missiles fired at you would be a huge success. An unprecedented, spectacular success. Alright, so that ministry building got a bit charred, but such is war.
With nuclear warheads a 9/10 success rate as the defender means you just lost half a million people, maybe more. Or your major source of freshwater just got irradiated. Or a key economic target just got melted.
It’s all or nothing you have to be able to stop every single potential incoming shot, or else you have to go back to the drawing board and come up with a new plan for world domination.
“We’re a lot poorer now and we live in, lets face it, a much more stable, predictable and safer world.”
Poorer? Is your clone writing this stuff?
More predictable? Explain the mechanisms that have made this world more predictable? I’ll agree it’s safer (if you live in the West) but that can change in less than a generation and has done.
“that if you can shoot down any more than 10% of the cruise missiles fired at you then you’re doing really bloody well.”
Your sample is somewhat biased Chris and you know it.
“With nuclear warheads a 9/10 success rate as the defender means you just lost half a million people, maybe more. Or your major source of freshwater just got irradiated. Or a key economic target just got melted.”
You’re thinking like a layman. Not like a nuclear planner or targeteer. To them 1 nuclear weapon getting through is not a catastrophe for the country, it is a catastrophe for the attack plan. In launching a nuclear strike one has certain objectives that do not just involve an anti-city strategy. In fact, in humanitarian terms we’re more likely to launch a counter-asset strike and to make that strike credible you need to ensure most of your weapons hit your target. If 10% of your weapons are lost, on top of normal failure rates, and that 10% is entirely random, you just made your targetting problems far harder and you will need a corresponding increase in weapons. If is far cheaper to shit out extra SAMs than it is nuclear tipped cruise missiles. A cruise missile deterrent leaves ones force open to virtual and real attrition and gives your enemy an edge in thinking that you will be less likely to strike and less likely to be succesful if you did.
This will eventually happen as ABM matures and as long as we can traverse the initial period of instability any new weapon development brings then I confidently predict an ABM arms race rather than a nuclear one. The world will become safer from nuclear strike, but probably not war.
Next up, LibDems produce report on how much money we’d save if we stopped producing entirely redundant reports – egad, I hate lefties these days!
Observer: Can’t speak for the man himself, and missed the comment that prompted the name and pic change, but this might have something to do with it:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarka_the_Otter
Chris.B.: The old problems of being denied access to various ports and harbours if you even *might* be carrying nukes has already been discussed. That was a fairly parenthetic point not intended to carry much of the weight of the argument, and should be treated accordingly*. The next part carries most of the weight of this point:-
As in all things, perception rules: it’s not armageddon but a single weapon needs to be fired at a transgressor, as a stern but measured lesson. However many MIRVs (might just be one or two for just this kind of thing) your SLBM might be carrying, it is generally (ie by most people) considered to be *a* weapon. How many cruise missiles do you fire to ‘ensure’ that a single one hits the single target, after negotiating the enemy’s AD system?
Anything more than one will be perceived differently by all concerned, than one will; and may lead to an escalation and/or condemnation that *a* Trident wouldn’t.
*Remember your article about some Airbus or other, where you mentioned that it might be a possible AWACS replacement, and you were repeatedly dismayed that someone latched onto that one bit, that you considered throwaway, and kept going on about it: it works *just* like that. Since you’re ‘allergic to hypocrisy’, you won’t have any trouble understanding this. ;)
Chris
“– That rather assumes that a) all that money goes back into our economy (a portion gets siphoned off by BAE shareholders abroad) b) that the technology has a value outside of this project and c) that the money wouldn’t be spent elsewhere by government, also being put into the UK economy.”
I’m not sure BAE, evil incarnate as surely they are, routinely skim billions off MoD projects and spirit it out to the Caymans…any way you cut it the bulk of that money is staying in the UK economy and doing good there!.
In terms of SSBN having value outside of the specific project I think its fairly well accepted that SSBN is needed to keep Barrow ticking over until the follow-on to Astute is required. So your question ‘b’ is manifestly pointless. Your point ‘c’ is also quite bizarre – should Barrow close we’ll be buying fleet subs abroad going forward and we will lose a core sovereign defence capability.
Saving the money on Successor, in whatever capability package, will cost us greatly, in directly financial terms, going forward and we will lose a capability set we have a lot invested in…just as new players are looking to step into the SSN game. Something both foolish and myopic at the same time.
My view would be to cancel the specialist Successor hull programme, order Astute hulls 8 & 9 to keep Barrow in work well into the next decade, and shift the funding into a multirole Fleet sub hull. The idea being for the first hull to start building after Astute #9 with, perhaps, 5 units as a batch1. That and a new small form-factor ballistic would likely not allow for a lot by way of savings, but, we’ll end up with more useable hulls and an easy, cheap, route into Astute replacement in the 2030’s.
Chris.B.: Forgot to mention; it may well just be rumour but it is often said that there was a forthright convo with Saddam to the effect of, ‘Don’t use your chemical weapons against us or Israel and we won’t nuke you – however…’.
Dunno.
I think that we should certainly make it known (if we haven’t already) that we will respond with nukes against any state that was found to be linked with any WMD attack upon us (lots of nasty bioweapons out there): hence my above point about the world perception of firing *a* (rather than two, five or ten to ‘ensure’ a single penetration) weapon back.
@ Chris B
re Cruise vs SLBM
It isn’t bullshit. I think APATS has been through this with you at least once if not more times.
re Cheap
£2bn is approximately one third of one percent of HMG’s budget. Operating costs for deterrent are roughly £1bn per year. £250million to operate for the boats. £750million to operate AWE. Big numbers yes. But in terms of Western government spending its peanuts.
@ Simon
No videos. The Wikipedia page appears accurate; that is it matches the descriptions of the system I have in books.
The block 1 VLS system is even better. The system has had several incremental upgrades over the years. One of the major leaps was the replacement of mechanical gyros with solid state devices.
@Jonesy – “Nuclear weapons in a cupboard and asking the Russians what part of their country that would really really mind us flattening, seriously, I know the Liberal Democrats are often seen as being a bit wet but this takes things to a whole new level.What a preposterous notion that is as wet as an otter’s pocket.”
http://www.libdemvoice.org/opinion-a-submarine-for-all-seasons-30657.html
http://www.york.ac.uk/media/politics/documents/research/Continuitychange.pdf
Wiseape
Yes, Astute SSN doing SSN stuff, then 4 or 5 stretched Astutes with an 8 pack of C4 tubes, doing SSBN duties.
Assuming the Yanks also want to save dosh by having stretched Virginias with 12 or 16 C4 tubes.
By all means have a D5/E6 size missile if the US/UK are willing to pay for the development of dedicated SSBNs
@ Phil,
“Poorer? Is your clone writing this stuff?”
— The current government is lining up to slice £10 billion off the welfare budget, as for yet another year in a row borrowing has been higher than expected. So yes, poorer. Or have you missed the whole budget cuts business?
“More predictable? Explain the mechanisms that have made this world more predictable?”
— Because the nature of the world economy and government interaction has changed. Up to the 1800’s, internal wars in Europe were common place, on the order of small wars taking place every decade or so. A time has gone by, the distance separating these wars has increased. The last serious internal war in Europe that involved a large, fairly even conventional battle was nearly 70 years ago. None of the nations in Europe currently in a position to be taking on the others unilaterally.
Europe is calmer, more predictable. That’s basically an undeniable fact. The Indian-Pakistani tensions are less likely to blow out into an all out war. The presence of the US in the Pacific has put a block on the prospect of much serious fighting in that region, rhetoric aside.
So yes, the world has become a slightly more predictable place. Don’t confuse that with being perfectly clear or perfectly predictable. But more predictable.
“Your sample is somewhat biased Chris and you know it”
— Not really. We have multiple conflicts now, against a variety of enemies equipped with some fairly standard weaponry for most of the states that we are interested in. The same air defence system that was able to bring down an F-117 was unable to stop a myriad of TLAM strikes.
Further, think about this logically. The B-2 Spirit was designed as what? A low RCS, low altitude penetration bomber. The same sort of attributes shared by a cruise missile.
“You’re thinking like a layman. Not like a nuclear planner or targeteer. To them 1 nuclear weapon getting through is not a catastrophe for the country, it is a catastrophe for the attack plan”
— Even for someone like Russia, half a million deaths is a catastrophe. Even for Iran, half a million deaths is a catastrophe. And this is on the assumption that just one shot gets through. History tells us the strike rate would be much higher. The example given was biased to throw a small bone to the anti-cruise argument. Even then it doesn’t help them a lot. As a planner, there is no way you can go to a leader with a straight face and tell him that you’re going to get them all.
We’re not trying to inflict some kind of structured “we’ll we hit this first, and then we hit that, and then on day two we got after this” type order. This is nothing but a retaliation, designed to inflict screaming terror and damage in response to a first strike. Targetting cities would have no logic to it as part of some organised battle plan. It’s a horrific act, meant as a repayment.
“If is far cheaper to shit out extra SAMs than it is nuclear tipped cruise missiles”
— Think about how vast the Russian territory is as an example. Think of how many cities and critical economic and military structures there are, dispersed over a wide area. Every single one of those you have to try and defend. This is not a conventional war we’re talking about. You don’t get to leave city xyz unprotected because it has nothing of military value in it. It’s a city with lots of people packed closely together. Thus it becomes a potential target for a retaliation. Suddenly half the Russian defence budget is being spent on SAM systems that may or may not work. Is Russia going to fork out for S-300 systems for every single city, economic or military target that could plausibly be hit? Let them try, they’ll go bankrupt.
@ tsz52,
“The old problems of being denied access to various ports and harbours if you even *might* be carrying nukes has already been discussed”
— Through out the cold war our ships periodically carried nuclear weapons (see the report on off loading of said weapons prior to the Falklands campaign). Our submarines carry great big chuffing reactor cores in their arse end. I imagine if people have a problem with N-tipped cruise missiles, they might just as easily have a problem with the possibility of a reactor core meltdown in their harbour.
“As in all things, perception rules: it’s not armageddon but a single weapon needs to be fired at a transgressor, as a stern but measured lesson”
— There is no ‘stern but measured lessons’ in nuclear exchanges. You can’t vaporise someones city or major oil/gas hub and expect them to treat it as a slap on the wrist. If you’re firing your weapons things have already gone a bit too tits up to be worrying about what sort of message you’re sending by firing x number of warheads.
I can’t imagine anyone would take a MIRV being dropped on them as a ‘stern but measured lesson’. I suspect they’re likely to think you’re something of a cunt for killing several thousand of their people.
@ Jonesy,
“I’m not sure BAE, evil incarnate as surely they are, routinely skim billions off MoD projects and spirit it out to the Caymans…any way you cut it the bulk of that money is staying in the UK economy and doing good there!”
— Skimming off money? No, I mean look at their shareholders. A lot of the BAE shareholders, who reap the profits of BAE’s endeavours, are foreign companies, hedge funds, pension funds etc.
“In terms of SSBN having value outside of the specific project I think its fairly well accepted that SSBN is needed to keep Barrow ticking over until the follow-on to Astute is required. So your question ‘b’ is manifestly pointless. Your point ‘c’ is also quite bizarre – should Barrow close we’ll be buying fleet subs abroad going forward and we will lose a core sovereign defence capability.”
— The RUSI touched on this point in their report regarding the future of the deterrent. Having investigated the likely state of the job market and taken all factors into consideration, to uncouthly summarise, their position on this matter was; “it’s a load of bollocks”.
For example, we regenerated the capability in order to build the Astute submarines. Most of the delays and costs on that project were attributable to the initial design and planning. An outside company like Electric Boat could be brought in to do some of the design work and then the boats be built in a British yard. Which is basically what happened last time.
This adds some cost to the project initially, but when the alternative is spending billions of pounds to build equipment over an artifically stretched time scale, just so you can save yourself a billion quid, the cost analysis falls in favour of just kick starting the whole thing again when you need it.
“Saving the money on Successor, in whatever capability package, will cost us greatly, in directly financial terms”
— How do you figure that one out? That’s more money in the governments pocket, that can be spent elsewhere or simply removed from the budget, relieving some of the pressure on tax or borrowing, however you choose to fund your government.
“just as new players are looking to step into the SSN game. Something both foolish and myopic at the same time”
— New players? I thought you said that once we stopped building submarines they were lost to us for all time unless we buy off someone else? So where do all these “new players” get their subs from?
“order Astute hulls 8 & 9 to keep Barrow in work well into the next decade….. The idea being for the first hull to start building after Astute #9 with, perhaps, 5 units as a batch1. That and a new small form-factor ballistic ……….. we’ll end up with more useable hulls and an easy, cheap, route into Astute replacement in the 2030′s”
— What was I saying just a moment ago? Your “cheap route” to keeping the costs down on the Astute successor is to build two more Astutes at a billion a pop, then 5 more subs that I’m not sure whether they’re SSBN or Astute, then more submarines on top of that.
So you’re looking at spending perhaps £7 billion over the next few years (and that’s just on construction) to save yourself a potential cost over run in the future of a few billion at most?
@ x
“It isn’t bullshit. I think APATS has been through this with you at least once if not more times”
— The real world evidence, of which we have in abundance, currently heavily favours the cruise missile.
“£2bn is approximately one third of one percent of HMG’s budget. Operating costs for deterrent are roughly £1bn per year. £250million to operate for the boats. £750million to operate AWE. Big numbers yes. But in terms of Western government spending its peanuts”.
— Treating it as peanuts is why the NHS has been identified as wasting half a billion quid a year just on the purchase of consumables such as gloves and uniforms.
Half a billion quid can go a bloody long way if you spend it wisely. It’s twats like Brown and Blair treating a a billion quid as small change to be thrown around frivolously that set us up for a calamity later, and it’s one of the reasons you have to pay so much tax on your fuel.
Treating anything sums of that kind as throwaway change is madness.
@ Tarka
That first link is an article written by our very own Swimming Trunks.
@ Chris B
Who said I was throwing it away? What you don’t understand is that £2bn on a system like Trident is a bargain. It is money well spent. The USSR went belly up because it bought huge conventional forces and then went on to purchase huge war reserves too. It wasn’t their nukes that took them over the financial edge. We, the West, bought a smaller amount of hi-tech conventional forces, hardly any war reserves, lots of nukes, threatened the USSR with Armageddon, and had well stocked shops, holidays, colour TVs, and one or more car per household.
(off topic: As for gloves and uniforms and the NHS I think that is money well spent too. I have spent an inordinate amount of time at the local hospital over the last 4 years or so. And yes they get through gloves and plastic arpons like there is no tomorrow. But avoiding infections spreading is going to cost money. Better than them paying out compensation.)
“Or have you missed the whole budget cuts business?”
I can’t be arsed to look up the figures and I’ll accept if I am wrong but I do believe our economy has shrunk by a tiny amount since 2008 and the problem with our finances is far more down to how we spend our taxes and government revenue than the overall size of our economy.
I’ll grant you that Europe is slightly more predictable than it used to be but I just fail to see how you can consider a world where in the last 9 years we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. Honestly, perhaps some folk always thought we’d need to invade Iraq back in 1991 but how likely was it in 1997 and how likely was it we’d be fighting in fucking Afghanistan?! We can generally predict that China will continue to get stronger but nobody knows how that will pan out, we can generally predict the Middle East will remain a shit hole but again nobody knows the details.
Europe is slightly more predictable but frankly we have economies teetering on the edge of going under, Greece with riots on the streets which is right next to Turkey who is currently shelling Syria. Events cascade and interact in unpredictable manners and the more assured the international order is the more shocking and unpredictable are the cascades.
“Because the nature of the world economy and government interaction has changed.”
Fundamentally it has not. Government relations remain almost precisely the same since 1648, indeed, you can actually say we’ve gone back to a time pre-Westphalia seeing as we now dabble so freely in the sovereignty of others.
“Not really.”
Err, yes it is. We’ve never fired a cruise missile in anger against anything like a peer enemy against key targets defended by the most modern IAD network. And in anycase, not a single MIRV would have been shot down by the same enemies which have managed to try and shoot down our TLAMs and succeeded. There would have been precisely 0 losses from enemy action to our deterrent. You could not have the same level of assuredness using cruise missiles, you’ve eaten into your credibility.
“The same air defence system that was able to bring down an F-117 was unable to stop a myriad of TLAM strikes.”
Nice try. The context of the F117 shoot down was allied planners getting lazy and using the same flight routes which enabled the flight to be predicted and shot down on a wing and a prayer by the Serbs. They shot down precisely NO other planes whatsoever, I believe an F16 crashed with engine failure.
“A low RCS, low altitude penetration bomber. The same sort of attributes shared by a cruise missile.”
As part of an in-depth multi platform, multi capability nuclear deterrent. I’d be up for having 100 B2s with cruise missiles as a deterrent if they were dispersed and supported by tankers and maintained an air alert by the B52s of SAC did in their early days. Cost a fortune though.
“We’re not trying to inflict some kind of structured “we’ll we hit this first, and then we hit that, and then on day two we got after this” type order”
That was precisely how planners were working in the Cold War and probably still are because they have to, that’s their job, we have a capability, its utility resides in its latent potential against your enemies and so you plan your targetting and strategy to achieve best effects on target. The Soviets built their Typhoons I believe precisely to ensure a second strike up to a year down the line.
As I’ve said, whatever works the best and to me at the moment I see nothing to show me that anything other than CASD would work as well.
@Chris.B.
Overall growth is slow, however for those who want to look, we’re not in terrible shape overall are we? Certainly better off than we were in 2005.
So what is the deal with the economy then?
Pensions, NHS, Benefits and Public Sector Pay. The levels we were spending at were unsustainable. Public pensions were effectively a Ponzi scheme at previous rates. The math never took our longevity increases into appropriate account for a start.
The NHS budget has doubled but I don’t see twice the effect.
Benefit cuts are aimed at incentivising work. That’s got to be a good thing overall? Trick is to do it in a way that doesn’t hurt those who genuinely need help, those who I don’t think anyone minds helping out with a bit of tax money.
What’s really going on in the UK is a massive rebalance in the economy, attempting to encourage a large portion of the public sector built up over 20 years into the private arena where their labour more directly equates to GDP (nod to @WiseApe, still owe you a pint?).
It’s up to you to decide if the rate of conversion is too much too soon, especially given the global downturn.
Actually that last graph is quite telling. Europe’s having the trouble, largely because they can’t print money to devaluate in order to reflect the regionalised problems and that can hurt us quite badly.
Global investors think the UK is doing ok though, otherwise they’d be demanding much higher yields.
£2b a year at 0.1% GDP is quite cheap compared to our other costs, especially as you yourself have stated the direct tax clawback on that is in the 20-40% range.
We contribute £9billion or so to the EU……..
@ X,
“Who said I was throwing it away? What you don’t understand is that £2bn on a system like Trident is a bargain. It is money well spent.”
— If you assume that it and it alone provides the level of security required, then maybe you can start to build a case. If you accept that the likelyhood of a strike against the UK, what with us being partners with the US and all, is fractionally small, then it’s an excess system that just pours money down the drain.
Keep in mind that an ever increasing number of senior military figures from this country have – over the last 5-10 years – come out and said that they feel the deterrent is redundant. Even now we’re hearing rumours that the current chiefs were more than happy to back Trident when it someone elses money being spent on it, but now that it has to come out of their own pocket they’re murmuring about alternatives or disposal.
Presumably these chiefs, with more access to more data on a much bigger picture than any of us could ever hope for are all just liberal do gooders though? Don’t know what they’re talking about, etc?
“As for gloves and uniforms and the NHS I think that is money well spent too”
— No, tit, the report didn’t mean that gloves and uniforms for hospital staff are an unnecessary expense. I’d have thought that much was obvious. The report identified half a billion quid in wasted cash through the methods of procuring these items.
@ Phil,
“I can’t be arsed to look up the figures and I’ll accept if I am wrong but I do believe our economy has shrunk by a tiny amount since 2008 and the problem with our finances is far more down to how we spend our taxes and government revenue than the overall size of our economy”
— It’s down to the fact that we have a ridiculous debt burden that just keeps getting bigger at the minute, despite all the efforts to try and cut money out of the national budget to reduce spending along with a program of tax increases.
While we’re doing much better than a lot of countries, things still need to pick up soon or it’s going to get progressively more expensive. We’re hacking great lumps out of various budgets to try and manage the situation. Under those conditions, all spending is up for review.
“I’ll grant you that Europe is slightly more predictable than it used to be but I just fail to see how you can consider a world where in the last 9 years we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan”
— We’ve basically been bombing Iraq at intermittent periods since the end of the ’91 conflict. In the late 90’s Bill Clinton signed into law an act in the US that specificed regime change in Iraq as one of its goals. Iraq was effectively one long war that ran from ’91 to ’03, with a low intensity portion in the middle.
Afghanistan had been struck before 9/11 and many in the US government and intelligence services had warned the administration(s) about the danger there. It was not the complete bolt out of the blue that is often believed, which helps explain how quickly the invasion was established.
“We can generally predict that China will continue to get stronger but nobody knows how that will pan out”
— Most government and private intelligence experts concur that China might not even be able to win a limited campaign against Japan, let alone a war with multiple states backed by the US. See the recent incident over the small Island chain that Japan has now bought. Despite all the rhetoric and national passion flowing back and forth, China has done very little formerly about the issue.
Because it can’t. And everybody else knows it can’t.
China’s economy is not only heavily export orientated, but its demands for exterior oil and raw materials are increasing rapidly. It cannot survive a severing of its economic supply lines and continue to maintain the standards of growth and general living and production that it does.
China is actually believed to be very predictable, because it’s shackled by a number of geographic and fiscal restraints. On the minute details and petty wrangling, you can see some volatility. But in major movements on major issues? Stable as you like. Stability is a crucial aspect of how the Chinese government operates.
“Europe is slightly more predictable but frankly we have economies teetering on the edge of going under, Greece with riots on the streets which is right next to Turkey who is currently shelling Syria”
— It’s a concern, but only a minor one. And neither of them has nuclear weapons.
“Fundamentally it has not. Government relations remain almost precisely the same since 1648,”
— Which is why we have been to war with France so many times in the last few decades? No? Because these two governments have massively altered the way they view each other. We have an expeditionary force in Europe, except unlike in the past it’s not in France, squaring off against the Germans. It’s in Germany and soon to come home. The Europeans are playing all lovey dovey, cuddly, cuddly lets integrate further.
The French have actively been trying to recruit us for a number of campaigns like Libya, and have just kicked off things at the UN about intervening in Mali. This is not your Grand dads Europe.
“We’ve never fired a cruise missile in anger against anything like a peer enemy against key targets defended by the most modern IAD network”
— We’ve fired them at targets surrounded by some of the heaviest AAA fire deployed since the Vietnam war, and plethora’s of SAM systems, in broad daylight. We (the west) even had the cheek to fire them along roughly the same flight paths on multiple days.
“You could not have the same level of assuredness using cruise missiles, you’ve eaten into your credibility”
— Multiple reports have identified whether the Trident level of destruction was really an identified strategic necessity, or simply that we bought Trident because the Americans were building it.
“Nice try. The context of the F117 shoot down was allied planners getting lazy and using the same flight routes which enabled the flight to be predicted and shot down on a wing and a prayer by the Serbs. They shot down precisely NO other planes whatsoever, I believe an F16 crashed with engine failure.”
— They’re credited with three aircraft down and three more damaged. How many mission aborts they scored I guess we don’t know. For an interesting read look up ‘Package Q’ on t’internet, from ’91. F-16’s trying to attack Baghdad had a not so fun time against the Iraqi air defences.
“That was precisely how planners were working in the Cold War and probably still are because they have to, that’s their job, we have a capability, its utility resides in its latent potential against your enemies and so you plan your targetting and strategy to achieve best effects on target”
— The threat of deterrent is supposed to be its value. The enemy has no clue what bits you’re targetting. If you happen to hit city A and kill a shit load of people, but not city B, I don’t think that’s going to be especially relevant in the grand scheme of things, because you still killed a bunch of people.
@ The Other Chris,
“Benefit cuts are aimed at incentivising work”
— Benefit cuts are aimed at cutting the budget. If you want to incentivse the long term unemployed to work you could just offer them a complete tax break for the first six months, or a bounty payment of a grand for staying in full time work for more than 12 months etc.
Let’s not dress these cuts up as anything other than what they are. It’s about reducing government expenditure. Whether people think that’s right or wrong is entirely down to them, but let’s not pretend this a morally motivated decision.
“What’s really going on in the UK is a massive rebalance in the economy, attempting to encourage a large portion of the public sector built up over 20 years into the private arena where their labour more directly equates to GDP (nod to @WiseApe, still owe you a pint?)”
— Err, I wouldn’t count on that. That may be the dressing, but again, this is about getting people off the governments books.
Gents, think this horse has been well and truly beaten to death and beyond, Chris isn’t going to change his position no matter how well argued the countervaling position is, so why bother?
Chris, how old are you? If you say 18, I’m really going to facepalm.
Yes really that was my last hurrah on the nuclear matter. Neither of us has been moved a particle by the other. Nevermind.
No Afghan was not a bolt out of the blue if you don’t adjust for hindsight bias that is. It’s easy to put the pieces together afterward.
As for Iran being a minor issue. When did your spacecraft leave Earth orbit?!!
Keep in mind that an ever increasing number of senior military figures from this country have – over the last 5-10 years – come out and said that they feel the deterrent is redundant. Even now we’re hearing rumours that the current chiefs were more than happy to back Trident when it someone elses money being spent on it, but now that it has to come out of their own pocket they’re murmuring about alternatives or disposal.
Presumably these chiefs, with more access to more data on a much bigger picture than any of us could ever hope for are all just liberal do gooders though? Don’t know what they’re talking about, etc?
Army generals who are scoring Political points in the hope of obtaining the money for their budget.
I think one of them may be able to spell Trident.
“– Skimming off money? No, I mean look at their shareholders. A lot of the BAE shareholders, who reap the profits of BAE’s endeavours, are foreign companies, hedge funds, pension funds etc.”
So you contend that BAE’s shareholder dividend is going to dramatically diminish the pot reinvested in UK high tech manufacturing?. Seeing that the entirety of BAE Groups profit last year was just over a billion I dont see that disbursements to shareholders is going to impact that £20Bn so much to be honest. The simple fact is that, however much the attempt to obfuscate is made, the bulk of that money stays in the local economy.
“– The RUSI touched on this point in their report regarding the future of the deterrent. Having investigated the likely state of the job market and taken all factors into consideration, to uncouthly summarise, their position on this matter was; “it’s a load of bollocks”.”
So you are trying to use RUSI’s credibility to say something absurd, like closing Barrow will not impact employment in a key strategic sector, without having to say it yourself. Would you have some provenance for this, somewhat counter-intuitive, claim made by the wild folks at RUSI?.
“For example, we regenerated the capability in order to build the Astute submarines. Most of the delays and costs on that project were attributable to the initial design and planning. An outside company like Electric Boat could be brought in to do some of the design work and then the boats be built in a British yard. Which is basically what happened last time.”
We dont want a repeat of what happened last time though do we?!!!. You are actually proposing that we kick in the UK’s submarine manufacturing capability, paying out to support the freshly devastated regional economy, then pay BAE to stand up short term manufacturing capability at some later date just after paying the US to the license for one of their designs. Is there a more expensive way to arrive at a Fleet sub capability?. It would be far cheaper just to get the Yanks to build the subs tacked on the end of their build run…which would be exactly what would happen in practice.
“– How do you figure that one out? That’s more money in the governments pocket, that can be spent elsewhere or simply removed from the budget, relieving some of the pressure on tax or borrowing, however you choose to fund your government.”
OK. You dump Barrow and you shut down submarine build in the UK. You have several thousand skilled people suddenly unemployed and needing retraining or leaving the area…most likely the latter. You lose a primary industry in a region and the support industries suffer at the same rate…domino’s fall until there are none left. Benefit dependence rises as does crime and suddenly a region goes from positive contribution to a tax drain. Pattern has repeated following the death of the coal industry in the valleys and midlands, port trade/shipbuilding in Liverpool, Glasgow etc and is well known. This is before we look at future submarine capability and the need, as you so willingly propose, to give large amounts of cash to the Americans.
“– New players? I thought you said that once we stopped building submarines they were lost to us for all time unless we buy off someone else? So where do all these “new players” get their subs from?”
They develop them as national ‘hero projects’, at great expense, with help from others. Hard to conceive that, once India, China or Brazil work out how to build SSN’s to the highest standards they’ll willingly allow that capability to die a death…you seem to think thats perfectly reasonable for us though??!.
“– What was I saying just a moment ago? Your “cheap route” to keeping the costs down on the Astute successor is to build two more Astutes at a billion a pop, then 5 more subs that I’m not sure whether they’re SSBN or Astute, then more submarines on top of that.”
No. I said it wouldnt save much of anything…the only reference using the word ‘cheap’ I made was to the Future SSN project as Successor would already have it on the table. I said building two more Astutes keeps Barrow in work and buys time to develop the SICBM necessary to make the concept work. If we arent spending the £20bn on Trident chucking an extra 1.5bn on hulls 8&9 (remember prices come down with longer build runs) is hardly an extravagance is it?.
“So you’re looking at spending perhaps £7 billion over the next few years (and that’s just on construction) to save yourself a potential cost over run in the future of a few billion at most?”
Possibly so. My way I need:
1) an expensive new SICBM suitable for triple-pack in the developed Common Section launch tubes and air-drop launch capable from a Globemaster.
2) …eventually, about 4-6 more C17’s for the Crabs as well..
3) a latter-day Chevaline project to deliver a high capability MARV/Penaid suite as the SICBM will be single RV only.
4) an evolved Astute design incoporating the Common bay ready to start building by the mid 2020’s plus I need to keep Barrow working until all this can be brought together.
I’d say £7bn is a low pitch for that lot. What I end up with though is a scaleable, reactive, deterrent and a conventional force uplift of quite a margin…a lot more, for the same money, than just a single-role bomber submarine and a damnsight more than a few holes drilled in the Highlands with a ‘peace-camp’ spotted nearby!.
If the Comrades start to mellow and the only issue is a raging dinner-jacketed Iranian with a couple of IRBM’s then we shuffle a couple of C-17’s around to keep them near pre drop-palleted SICBM storage sites and jobs a good ‘un. Our multirole SSN’s do usual SSN stuff with extra TacToms in the tubes or whatever and we enjoy the extra conventional capability they bring. If our threat level ramps up and Chinese SSBN’s start swinging round the Capes the duty multirole SSN comes in for a role-change and a second gets generated and sortied following a stop at Coulport with the extra Astutes allowing for coverage of the deterrent tasking…CASD kicks back in for the duration. Gradiated response on dual-use platforms being the keys to this.
Chris.B.: There were always diplomatic games and embarrassments involving foreign port access when maybe carrying nukes aboard, during the Cold War. I’m not theorising about this – do you not remember any of this?
I did clarify my ‘stern and measured lesson’ point soon after I made it, in another post. I’m not talking about nuking Spain for stealing our fish… damn fish-stealin’ bastards.
I can think of a ton of scenarios where the majority of world opinion would endorse *a single* nuke being fired, in the name of retribution and deterrent (which is what punishment legally is). I bet that at least one of them happens in my lifetime [but then again I’m a jaded old sod now, so could be wrong; though I rarely am in my darker predictions].
Aaannnddd… I’m back.
Nobody was getting the otter joke…
@Chris.B.
If it were just reducing expenditure, you’d be right.
This is about rebalance in order to increase revenue which is far more clever than simple salami slicing: You convert those requiring benefits and public sector wages into private sector taxpayers.
The numbers being talked about are so small, 0.5% of annual GDP, that in themselves won’t have much of an impact.
However it’s the multiplicative effect you’re after: You require 6 people working (£4000 average tax) to support one person on benefits (£24,000 average).
That targeted £10b worth of benefits reduction, if conversion is complete, frees at least £60b in return for spending elsewhere. This is achieved through a combination of removed payouts, direct taxation, employer contributions and spending revenue.
The raw data’s available from the House of Commons library, however given track record I suggest you have a gander at a distilled form, though I don’t hold out much hope you’ll read it let alone digest the significance.
You need to look past the surface details Chris, which is why I’ve taken you on this economics diversion. There’s some folks here far more learned than I trying to convey some absolute gems to you regarding strategy, history, technology and politics. You’re not even acknowledging the points, let alone demonstrating that you’re absorbing them or just taking them on board. You’re coming across as wanting to argue for arguments sake.
I’m admittedly guilty of this.
Back to the specific point here, even at £2b per year, a nuclear deterrent is eminently affordable if we think it’s required. I do, and leading on from that I believe that our CASD approach is the most effective given our circumstances.
I await the inevitable yet tedious blow by blow dissection of the above paragraphs in ways that are inconsequential to the topic at hand, but secretly hope that you’ll reflect on what’s gone before instead.
Oh dear, I’ve missed rather a lot haven’t I! In no particular order:
@X – “Anything is doable. Whether it is right or not is another matter” – Exactly my view on seafood.
@Jonesy – My point is you can go after nutters and their training camps, bomb factories, etc. with conventional forces. What can you do with SSBNs/D5s/MIRVs?
@Chris B – “And what stops them doing that to Faslane?” – Sshhh, don’t put ideas into their head which would render our multi-billion pound one trick pony useless!
@Simon – “I’m struggling to decide.” – There’s plenty of room next to me on the fence :-)
@John Hartley – That sounds an eminently sensible way of replacing the Vanguards.
@The Other Chris – “nod to @WiseApe, still owe you a pint?” – No worries, if you pay UK taxes you’ve already bought me several ;-)
@Phil – “How many nutters do you know with a nuclear bomb?” – I said “dirty bomb” in my earlier comment, not “THE bomb.”
@tsz52 – Let them have the bloody fish! But if they come after our cows, we go nuclear.
“@Jonesy – My point is you can go after nutters and their training camps, bomb factories, etc. with conventional forces. What can you do with SSBNs/D5s/MIRVs”
…and you prevent state level nuclear/WMD coercion with a national deterrent not conventional forces. The necessity is clear for both.
“I said “dirty bomb” in my earlier comment, not “THE bomb.””
Again, I ask you, where are they? If they get a dirty bomb they got the ingredients from a nation state whether legitimately or stolen because they don’t look after sensitive stuff like that properly. Our deterrent ensures that such nations take proper responsibility for their dangerous materials because we WILL respond in a nuclear manner you mark my words. Using nutters to deliver nuclear weapons is simply another delivery means which can be deterred just as well with an SSBN.
The terrorist’s dirty bombs are kept in the same ready use locker as their MANPADS and light sabres.
@Jonesy – “…and you prevent state level nuclear/WMD coercion with a national deterrent not conventional forces.” – And Germany, Italy, Spain, etc are being coerced by Russia/China/Narnia everyday because of their lack of a national deterrent, right?
The west could bring China to its knees by banning the import of plastic toys.
@Phil – “Our deterrent ensures that such nations take proper responsibility for their dangerous materials because we WILL respond in a nuclear manner you mark my words. ” – No offence Phil, but forgive me for not simply taking your word for it. BTW, how would you know who to target. Rely on an intelligence source perhaps? Also, dirty doesn’t have to mean nuclear.
Phil
This article suggests otherwise. Also us having trident really made Russia look after its nuclear weapons and scientists well over the last 20 years.
http://www.defencemanagement.com/news_story.asp?id=21105
It is common knowledge that such materials can be traced.
The article is one view. Which I don’t subscribe to. See my previous posts for why.
@Phil – So if it turns out that the “material” came from a US dump/lab, do we nuke the state in question? Even if we ended up nuking a less “contentious” location, what would the international reaction be to our unilateral action? Even if no one shot back at us I can see us having problems with our balance of trade!
@WiseApe
“The west could bring China to its knees by banning the import of plastic toys.”
The west would loose IPhone and whatever products. Even Philips and Samsumg are producing in China. Yes, the products could be made elsewhere, but I cannot see a real diversification strategy by any high-tech equipment maker.
Are you ready to tell the public, that this years christmas will be without low-cost asian-produced TV sets?
@Mark
“This article suggests otherwise. Also us having trident really made Russia look after its nuclear weapons and scientists well over the last 20 years.”
I’m pretty sure, any counterfactual analysis would have shown, that they would have looked at keeping their nukes anyway.
“So if it turns out that the “material” came from a US dump/lab, do we nuke the state in question”
Incredibly unlikely because the US takes its nuclear responsibilities seriously. As do all nuclear powers since they know the consequences.
Perhaps it is better to base our nuclear deterrent policy on realistic grounds rather than trite scenario’s written to try and win an argument.
WA
“And Germany, Italy, Spain, etc are being coerced by Russia/China/Narnia everyday because of their lack of a national deterrent, right?”
..and those states have the same foreign policy goals and identical levels of global engagement as we do all of a sudden do they?. If they had that then, yes, they would be vulnerable to the nuclear trump card. Just because other factors enter in first does nothing to diminish that bottom line.
“The west could bring China to its knees by banning the import of plastic toys.”
I’m assuming this is an off-the-cuff remark you havent thought through?. You cannot think that hurting the economy of a nation state the size of China would have no consequences?. China currently struggles to find jobs for the 2000 odd graduates it has coming out of its universities annually. Knacker its economy and watch as it starts to gobble up untapped mineral resources to offset whats been lost. First stop – annexation of the Spratleys and a confrontation with Vietnam, the Philipines and, ultimately, the US Navy. A wounded China is fantastically bad news for the west!.
Jonesy
So china kicks of a war with Vietam and we nuke it!!!??
China as: –
‘Boogyman. Official, scaring the crap out of the populus and money out of know nothing politico’s for the use of Mk1’
Is wearing stupidly thin. Frankly I am more worrried about alien invasions.
Maybe in 30- 40 years when it has
3- 5 nuclear carriers and the suport vessels to go with them.
B2 style transworld bombers.
Stops cutting back on it’s army and starts developing divison sized deployable, equiped force structures etc etc.
Large scale SSBN./ SSN
Then I will start worry about it.
Oh and by the way if it did all that just what are we supposed to do about it to stop them….
Phil
All the proponants of ‘ big nuclear’ trident replacement have never come up with proper realistic answer to the what do we do when a religious nutter sets of a 2nd hand/ home made Russian nuke in central London.
Do we use trident to destroy Kabul? Islamabad? (He may well be a saudi, saudi bred, saudi radicalised, and saudi (non state) funded, but I bet it won’t be saudi arabia)!
What happens if he’s from Bolton. (Hang on i’ve been to Bolton, a 1 megaton device would probably be civic improvement, and could do £50 worth of damage).
That is where Trident (whatever the practicalities of it’s replacement) as state v state deterent false down, what states are we liekly really going to deter with it. (And please not china)
@Phil – “Perhaps it is better to base our nuclear deterrent policy on realistic grounds rather than trite scenario’s written to try and win an argument.” – Did you type that with a straight face? My contention is that a state on state nuclear attack on the UK is extremely unlikely, much more likely to attack “underhandedly.” You really don’t have to descend into Tom Clancy-like scenarios to imagine how, in this day and age, one state could do harm to another without running a flag up a pole to say “We did it!” Or lobbing a nuke over the horizon. Proxy terror attacks are one option, cyber is another. Then of course there’s good old commercial plagiarising, industrial espionage, protectionism…
@McZ – “Are you ready to tell the public, that this years christmas will be without low-cost asian-produced TV sets?” – If China is trying to coerce us, then yes. If the other options were bow down to or get into a shooting match with China, I think the public would back my choice. I think you’re quoting me a little out of context, check out the Jonesy quote immediately above my remark.
BTW, I own one Apple product which I wish I hadn’t bought – though my beloved Kindle was “Assembled in China.” As are a great many “British” products from the likes of Cyrus, Arcam, etc. Why would China want to nuke one of its best customers?
@Jonesy – “You cannot think that hurting the economy of a nation state the size of China would have no consequences?” – I was providing an example of how the west could respond to Chinese coercion, which if you recall, you brought up.
@Jonesy – Apologies, you said: “…state level nuclear/WMD coercion..” without mentioning China specifically.
Anyway, I’m about done with the whole debate now. I’ve made my views clear and whilst I wish I was rich enough to have the leisure to rebut any and all artificially concocted scenario’s used as an argument against my views and to endlessly repeat myself, alas, I am not.
@ Obeserver,
“Chris isn’t going to change his position no matter how well argued the countervaling position is, so why bother?”
— You’re making a rather presumptive suggestion there, that your point of view is right and that everyone should switch to it. Frankly some of the “well argued countveraling” points have been anything but. Notice also there is actually a group of people who disagree with your position (for various reasons), not just me.
“Chris, how old are you? If you say 18, I’m really going to facepalm,”
— What? Are? You? Talking? About? I seem to remember the other day you climbed up on a high horse and got your knickers in an awful twist about what you considered to be personal attacks. And then here we are? Contributing nothing to the debate in a frankly slighly bizarre personal attack? I take it this is a case of ‘do as I say, not do as I do’ type of thing you have going on?
@ Phil,
“No Afghan was not a bolt out of the blue if you don’t adjust for hindsight bias that is”
— The World Trade Center bombing was conducting by AQ. In 1998 something like 60-70 cruise missiles were fired by the US at training camps in Afghanistan. One of the stated targets was Osama Bin Laden. Does that mean that they predicted 9/11? No. But a lot of people suspected an attack of some form, at some point. The Afghan Ambassador to either the US or UN even warned the US government several times about the dangers.
US intelligence agencies were active in Afghanistan long before 9/11. Did people predict that the US would invade Afghanistan on the scale that they did? No. But there were many that suspected that eventually the US would get involved to some degree or another, though on a more clandestine scale.
“As for Iran being a minor issue. When did your spacecraft leave Earth orbit?!!”
— Presumably it hit your comms satellite on the way out and scrambled subsequent messages, because at no point did I describe Iran as being a ‘minor’ issue. But hey ho, why not just pretend I’ve said things I haven’t and stick a personal attack on the end for good measure? I’m sure Observer wont mind, he only seems to complain when he thinks people are doing it to him or someone he agrees with. Honestly I didn’t think that was your style mate.
@ APATS,
“Army generals who are scoring Political points in the hope of obtaining the money for their budget. I think one of them may be able to spell Trident”
— Oh I see. How silly of me!! See normally I thought you were very keen to lecture people about serving or former serving officers being highly trained professionals, with access to large quantities of data and knowledge that the rest of us don’t, who make almost perfect decisions based on that knowledge.
But now I get it, thanks for clarifying. That position only counts when we’re talking about Royal Navy officers. I see that when it comes to the army they’re all unprofessional time wasters, whose opinions are irrelevant because they just want the money. Not learned men of the armed forces who have studied the issues in some depth, and have access probably to more information about high level national threats than even yourself would be privvy to?
Note to self: Dark Blue Uniform = highly intelligent, almost perfect decision making, must not question. Green Uniform = Complete thicko, can’t spell “Trident”, only after the money, not able to form own rational opinions about the future of the deterrent.
Got it. Thanks!
@ Jonesy,
“So you contend that BAE’s shareholder dividend is going to dramatically diminish the pot reinvested in UK high tech manufacturing?”
— No. Just pointing out that not all of the money given to BAE finds it way back into the UK economy as you contended earlier. Some of it is syphoned off by shareholders.
“So you are trying to use RUSI’s credibility to say something absurd, like closing Barrow will not impact employment in a key strategic sector, without having to say it yourself. Would you have some provenance for this, somewhat counter-intuitive, claim made by the wild folks at RUSI?”
— Quoting from RUSI;
Start quote
If orders are delayed for too long, it is contended, it will leave a gap after completion of current orders for new attack submarines, thereby threatening the loss of irreplaceable skilled personnel. Such arguments should be viewed with some scepticism, with assumptions on labour market rigidity perhaps particularly open to question.
End quote.
“We dont want a repeat of what happened last time though do we?!!!. ”
— Last time we had to hire a US company anyway to come in and sort out the mess. Letting them run it from the start, in a British yard, could avoid the problem.
“You have several thousand skilled people suddenly unemployed and needing retraining or leaving the area…most likely the latter. You lose a primary industry in a region and the support industries suffer at the same rate…domino’s fall until there are none left. Benefit dependence rises as does crime and suddenly a region goes from positive contribution to a tax drain.”
— Most of those skilled people are lucky enough that they can quite easily apply their skills elsewhere, almost with an unlimited choice. As for the benefits payments. What you’re essentially arguing is that the government should subsidise the jobs of a large number of people who get paid reasonably good wages for a decade or more… in order to stop them going on the dole for a bit?
Okey dokey.
“They develop them as national ‘hero projects’, at great expense, with help from others. Hard to conceive that, once India, China or Brazil work out how to build SSN’s to the highest standards they’ll willingly allow that capability to die a death”
— That depends on how many subs they need and can afford.
“The only reference using the word ‘cheap’ I made was to the Future SSN project as Successor would already have it on the table”
— I know. That’s the point. You’re essentially arguing to spend billions upon billions between now and the Astute replacement… just so you can save a billion on designing the Astute replacement. Good thinking Batman, we should totally roll with that.
“What I end up with though is a scaleable, reactive, deterrent and a conventional force uplift of quite a margin…”
— What you end up with is a project that costs probably twice as much, if not more than the standard proposed SSBN project, while adding quite a pointless element into the nuclear arsenal.
@ TSZ52,
“I can think of a ton of scenarios where the majority of world opinion would endorse *a single* nuke being fired, in the name of retribution and deterrent (which is what punishment legally is)”
— Possibly. But dropping 4-6 warheads from one missile doesn’t change the fact that you fired 4-6 warheads at the enemy. Unless people are incredibly dumb they’re hardly going to view that as “one strike”, just because they all came in on the same re-entry vehicle.
@ Swimming Trunks,
“Nobody was getting the otter joke…”
— Otter joke? I missed it. What was it?
@ The Other Chris,
“I await the inevitable yet tedious blow by blow dissection of the above [now below] paragraphs in ways that are inconsequential to the topic at hand, but secretly hope that you’ll reflect on what’s gone before instead.”
— I do love it when I see a statement like this. Especially when the impact of it will become apparent in a moment.
What you’re effectively saying is that you hate it or find it tedious when people have the temerity to say “hang on a second fella, that’s not right”, and challenge you by breaking down your argument into the specific points to be addressed, so they can share their opinion with you or point out something they think is wrong.
Well apology’s for not taking your word at face value and instead taking the time to answer your points and show you where I think you’ve gone wrong.
“The numbers being talked about are so small, 0.5% of annual GDP, that in themselves won’t have much of an impact”
— See the point I made yesterday to x about treating numbers as being too small to care care about or have an impact. Because 0.5% here, and 0.5% over there, and so on and so forth across an organisation the size of the government, and soon you’re looking at 10% of the budget. It’s treating these numbers as small that leads to overspends across the whole of government, which when accumulated have a big impact.
The specific example I gave to x was the way the NHS handles purchasing its consumables. £100 extra over here. £250 premium over there. And so on and so forth. ‘What’s £200 to an organisation that has a £100bn+ annual budget?’ The answer is an accumulated half billion pounds of public money being wasted every year.
“The raw data’s available from the House of Commons library, however given [your?] track record I suggest you have a gander at a distilled form, though I don’t hold out much hope you’ll read it let alone digest the significance”
+
“which is why I’ve taken you on this economics diversion”
+
“I’m admittedly guilty of this (hyperlink to the ‘somebodies wrong on the Internet’ thing)”
— I have to put these three things here, as one, because having smugly and quite arrogantly taken a position of assumed superiority, as if you were lecturing a child, they provide the rich and delightful context for your complete and utter fall from grace. Hence forth;
“That targeted £10b worth of benefits reduction, if conversion is complete, frees at least £60b in return for spending elsewhere. This is achieved through a combination of removed payouts, direct taxation, employer contributions and spending revenue”
— Had YOU read the report properly and actually had the first understanding of economics that you claim to, you would realise that what you’re implying is utterly, pants on head, glue-sniffing-at-a-friends-house-while-they-all-smoke-pot, completely fucking bonkers.
That £61 billion figure assumes that after you’ve made your £10 billion cut to the benefits bill… EVERY single unemployed person in the country would go out and get a job. Every single one of them. Including every single person who was on incapacity benefit, regardless of whether they’re cheating the system or genuinely incapacitated.
You would have to go from 8% unemployment to 0% unemployment. Let me say that again. 8% to 0%. Just on a historical note, as you seem to believe I have no interest in history, historically speaking over the last 30 years unemployment in this country has never fallen below 4%. It struggles to get under 5%, and even that is not the norm.
Oh but that’s not the best bit. For those of you already having a good chuckle at the revealed absurdity of the £61 billion claim, it gets so much better than that.
In order to achieve the supposed tax income that is being missied out on, those 8% of unemployed people would have to earn an average annual salary between them of about £40,000.
So from 8% unemployment to 0% unemployment, with all former claimants who couldn’t find jobs now taking jobs with an average annual salary of £40,000. That’s just priceless.
That’s the kind of economic plan that I suspect would have been conjured up by Baldrick, should he ever have made it into the Chancellors seat.
See now why I put your assumed smugness first? Because you clearly know as much about economics as my little Nephew, and he can’t even write his own name yet.
It all makes sense now, why you were so keen not to have your comments looked at in detail. Luckily someone was ‘tedious’ enough to produce a ‘blow by blow dissection’.
Fair point I misread you, you were talking about Turkey and Syria.
@ Chris B
“Army generals who are scoring Political points in the hope of obtaining the money for their budget. I think one of them may be able to spell Trident”
– Oh I see. How silly of me!! See normally I thought you were very keen to lecture people about serving or former serving officers being highly trained professionals, with access to large quantities of data and knowledge that the rest of us don’t, who make almost perfect decisions based on that knowledge.
But now I get it, thanks for clarifying. That position only counts when we’re talking about Royal Navy officers. I see that when it comes to the army they’re all unprofessional time wasters, whose opinions are irrelevant because they just want the money. Not learned men of the armed forces who have studied the issues in some depth, and have access probably to more information about high level national threats than even yourself would be privvy to?
Note to self: Dark Blue Uniform = highly intelligent, almost perfect decision making, must not question. Green Uniform = Complete thicko, can’t spell “Trident”, only after the money, not able to form own rational opinions about the future of the deterrent.
NO, RN and RAF senior Officers are just as capable of making Political points that may or may not be in the best interests of either, defence in general or a tri service out look.
Your childish little paragraph about dark blue and green uniforms is certainly not backed up by my posts on this site. I can make a joke at the army and ex army Officers in question because it was obvious that they were making a political point. That does not mean I think that they are “thickos” just that they had an obvious agenda.
Jonesy: “…and you prevent state level nuclear/WMD coercion with a national deterrent not conventional forces.”
In 2002 it was revealed it’d take Saddam no more than 45 minutes (20mins average) to move WMDs from storage and ready them for launch. Our Boys in Cyprus faced ‘doom’ (The Sun), but President Blair did not sit back and relax under the Trident umbrella. Six months later we invaded Iraq… with conventional forces.
Libyan WMD were removed by diplomacy and sanctions, and an exemplary display of conventional forces arrayed against Iraq. And in Iran, we’ll more likely see B2 and conventional MOPs deployed than nukes.
BB
The point being that in every case the opposition knew that any deployment of WMD against our conventional forces could be met with a repsonse he could do nothing about.
In effect our conventional forces operated under that umbrella that deterred the OPFOR from deploying WMDs.
That is one point of view.
What really sums it up for me is that “you cannot prove a negative”.
Ix
“So china kicks of a war with Vietam and we nuke it!!!??”
Nope China annexes the Spratleys and starts sinking Vietnamese and Philipino ships and we move smartly to US 7th Fleet engaged with PLAN’s South Sea Fleet with Japan, Australia and god knows who else in the mix. The point being that there is nothing simple in the West boycotting Chinese imports and anyone dismissing the potential ramifications as trivial needs to reconsider!.
WA
“I was providing an example of how the west could respond to Chinese coercion, which if you recall, you brought up.”
Thats the point I was making….the west very definitely could NOT respond in that manner unless it wished to gamble with triggering a regional conflict that, ironically, could see a direct nuclear threat against 7th Fleet basing in Japan!. That would be the Japan that we export £8bn’s worth of stuff to a year. This isnt branding China the bogeyman this is higlighting the fact that if you pull the food away from a big doggy he’s very likely to go and help himself to the first smaller doggies he comes across.
Chris
“If orders are delayed for too long, it is contended, it will leave a gap after completion of current orders for new attack submarines, thereby threatening the loss of irreplaceable skilled personnel. Such arguments should be viewed with some scepticism, with assumptions on labour market rigidity perhaps particularly open to question.”
That hardly amounts to what you said though does it?. Its talking about a delay between SSBN and SSN orders in an existing yard…not shutting down the yard and starting from scratch when HM Govt deign to make it next piecemeal orders.
“Last time we had to hire a US company anyway to come in and sort out the mess. Letting them run it from the start, in a British yard, could avoid the problem.”
Err….how about not getting in to the mess in the first place to need the Americans?!!. Which British yard are you considering the US company build in?. BAE would shut Barrow in a heartbeat if there is no work after Astute-7.
“– Most of those skilled people are lucky enough that they can quite easily apply their skills elsewhere, almost with an unlimited choice. As for the benefits payments. What you’re essentially arguing is that the government should subsidise the jobs of a large number of people who get paid reasonably good wages for a decade or more… in order to stop them going on the dole for a bit?”
Skilled people need jobs requiring those skills. Theres possibly the nuclear/power generation industry they could go to in the region but what else?. Otherwise those skills leave the region and take out the foundation for much of the support industries underneath. So the equation is Govt supports the manufcturing sector and stops not only those skilled workers going on the dole for a bit but, also, stops suppliers going under and keeps employment in transport, leisure, retail sectors and all the rest. What the Govt gets for its subsidies is also, going by the Astute, a top class defence product that we have a requirement for in the service. Its called ‘win-win’ to all but the most short-sighted.
“I know. That’s the point. You’re essentially arguing to spend billions upon billions between now and the Astute replacement… just so you can save a billion on designing the Astute replacement. Good thinking Batman, we should totally roll with that.”
Billions going where though!!!. Back into our own bloody economy!. Its quantitative easing with the benefit that we get something out at the end that we have a requirement for, creates training opportunity for youth AND shows off British manufacturing capability!. The Aussies are meant to be consulting BAE Barrow on their Collins replacement at the moment…I have no idea why as we have no real SSK experience, but, apparently someones told them we put together decent subs.
THEN at the end of all this we get the benefit of saving a few quid on the Future SSN project. Instead of a real potential success story here you want to give the US a sack of readies and let them deal with it?. Not American by any chance are you??.
@Everyone
Some strong and varied views popping up here!
For what it’s worth I don’t think agreeing is as important as actually having these kind of discussions in the first place.
What I really can’t stand in any given situation is the lazy attitude of ‘well it’s worked well in the past so lets not bother considering the alternatives’.
Maybe stretched Astute’s, nuclear tipped cruise missiles or whatever else wouldn’t work well in practice, and yes we will almost certainly end up with a direct Trident successor, but I for one am at least pleased that this kind of debate is taking place.
Hi, APATS. But if Trident were an effective deterrent against WMD, then conventional forces would not have been needed to offensively defend Cyprus. We would not have needed Trident to provide an umbrella for the forces invading Iraq, as the invasion would not have been required. Trident would have provided the ends (the defence of the SBAs from biological or chemical attack) in itself.
I do recognize that this is something of a contrived example by the way, as the dodgey dossier was an excuse rather than a reason for war.
BB
AS I said in my last post, Trident not only deterred an attack on the SBA but also deterred use of WMD against conventional forces.
It allows us to limit conflict to conventional means.
Yes Iraq not a great scenario as we all know the Invasion was about regime change and who knows what WMD capability Saddam actually had. However I will continue to use it as our example.
My line about proving a negative is that it is impossible to know whether WMDs may have been fired at SBA without the detterent, we only know that they weren’t and we have it. So yes it may well have proved a deterent but as most countries know we are extremely unlikely to launch a first strike, what it will never do is prove a toll of coercion.
For it to be that you must be prepared to use it as such and that goes against everything we stand for.
If we’re concerned about closing the sub yard if we don’t build SSBNs, we could build the eight Astutes -and I don’t think we’d need more than eight- then switch to SSKs rather than SSNs. Cheaper to build, would maintain many of the skills in the workforce, avoids the reactor legacy of more SSN, and could deliver an exportable product. Simply buy in the additional nuclear experience from the US when we need a replacement for the Astutes.
Simply buy in nuclear expertise? Really?
@Chris.B.
You reached the wrong conclusion on the budget details and based a riposte on that. I’m discussing the £60b rebalance potential from the £10b cuts. You’re discussing the £60b unemployment impact figure discussed in the news article. Easy mistake to make. Highlights you didn’t request the data on the Library site though but explains where you get the required 0% unemployment figure. For the record I agree with you that 0% unemployment is not likely to occur.
Your error resulted in a very Milliband style speech: Attack the other speaker at every opportunity (while looking around in an attempt to draw in the other playground attendees) yet not tackling the issues at hand, not venturing serious solutions of your own, not answering the question posed and missing the key details in the evidence provided.
Maybe we should take you back to the rotor pressure discussion, you still haven’t answered whether you think marinising the Merlin causes a significant enough reduction in performance to affect the performance required for a mission…
But this is what you usually do, launch personal attacks at those who attempt to provide you with a learning opportunity when we think you’ve missed something, q.v. X’s comments. Instead of welcoming their submitted points to the table (you don’t always have to agree with them by the way), you react as though you are threatened. You usually do it when trying to skip past a point you haven’t answered or if you think your integrity’s been questioned. A bit of aggressive legerdemain. Very easy to admit when you’re wrong, especially as none of our comments are considered peer reviewed papers!
Do you see there are at least two strands (likely more) to the data listed on the House of Commons Library site? Still trying to help you interpret the figures here, if pride can be put to one side? I can’t link directly as the Library site is one of those with a request procedure.
If you don’t want the hassle of going through the request process, that’s fine. Although 0.5% does indeed keep adding up (you’re right there) we’re only talking about a single 0.5% programme here. Not only that, but it’s a sovereign project with the direct tax clawback (your own advice sets this at 20%-40%) and there’s strong arguments for a Keynesian investment effect, resulting in potentially more growth in the economy than that spent on development.
End result, the deterrent is still eminently affordable. Perhaps even beneficial economically. Almost any project can be, if needed. Why is a successor deterrent needed?
Have a good night. Try to relax. Pick this up in the morning if you want to but can we keep it civil? Happy to apologise for my part if necessary. You can spend a lot of impressive energy analysing comments, channel it into the deterrent question.
Chris.B.:-
Me: “I can think of a ton of scenarios where the majority of world opinion would endorse *a single* nuke being fired, in the name of retribution and deterrent (which is what punishment legally is)…”
You: “Possibly. But dropping 4-6 warheads from one missile doesn’t change the fact that you fired 4-6 warheads at the enemy. Unless people are incredibly dumb they’re hardly going to view that as “one strike”, just because they all came in on the same re-entry vehicle.”
Obviously the likes of us will never know (unless it’s ever used, and then we’re told), but I’d be surprised if there weren’t one or two SLBMs in each warload that had only one or two MIRVs aboard for situations like I’m (deliberately vaguely) describing – I’ve mentioned this already in one of the few short posts I’ve made here, that you’ve responded to.
If not, then I hate to break it to you chief, but most people *are* not just ‘incredibly dumb’ but absolutely bedrock f*cking imbecilic stupid. They’re empty vessels passively waiting to be filled by the media.
You know how demonstrations of force get rebranded as kewl Spectacle (and an SLBM’s got it all, in spades!) for the masses; and everybody’s happy (including the ‘left/liberal’ f*ckwits, who also know flat zilch about weapons and tactics, or human nature) if it can be marketed as being both benign for the greater good and as minimal in magnitude as possible to achieve the necessary effect.
These people have gorged upon enough mooovieees (and PR-spun war porn on the news [please note that I’m criticising the coverage; not the acts themselves]) to ‘know’ that the plot dictates that high tech weapons ‘always’ work properly, when the chips are down, if right’s on your side – nothing else will compute.
You can get your talking head on the telly to explain till he’s blue in the face that you needed to fire ten nuclear cruise missiles to ‘ensure’ that a single one got through the evil and fiendish enemy’s AD network: but that will be perceived as being ten times too many nuclear weapons launched (‘OMG! we’ve just sextupled the number of nuclear weapons used in world history, with a single ‘punitive’ attack!’) by the Guardian-drones, and it’ll just feeeel too excessive to most of the rest (the same types of folks who were uneasy at the ‘Gotcha!’ headline, though massively in favour of our prosecution of the conflict).
[It also commits the cardinal sin of not being an Even Greater Spectacle Than Before for public consumption – cruise missiles are, like, sooooo… y’know… and we’ve all seen mushroom clouds before… yawn….]
This will apply equally to the governments and likes of the UN who will be responsible for blessing (or not opposing) this *strictly* limited punitive retaliation – they’re all obsessed with PR and image.
It is childsplay to spin a single Trident as being a single weapon, however many MIRVs it’s carrying. It’s natural for people to think that way anyway (think of how cluster-bombs, other submunition warheads in other missiles, or shotgun shots are perceived as being singular weapons/rounds/discharges). Most people (>90%?) will assume that a Trident has a single warhead anyway, unless told otherwise, so the media doesn’t have much work to do here. A wave of nuke cruise missiles simply can’t be reality/’message’ ‘managed’ in the same way.
I’m certain that there will be at least one more nuclear strike in human history, and it’s more likely to be us doing it than anyone else: Point is, done right, it shouldn’t be more than one: An SLBM’s doing it right, on every level.
Thing is Chris, though your quirky interpretations of what folks write sometimes takes us off into WTF!!? batshit territory, you are an extremely well informed and generally rational thinker – but you project that onto most people too… well, most people don’t deal with reality and fact neat, but morph it into convenient (usually pre-packaged for consumption) symbols, then process those symbols primarily with glands and gonads.
To you it’s irrational that somebody might deny an SSN that *might* be carrying nukes port access, when it’s got a huge effin reactor in the back… and yet….
To you it’s irrational that most people wouldn’t consider the MIRVs to be the actual weapons, rather than the fast tube and bus that gets them there… and yet….
The fundamental irrationality of most people will be particularly in evidence (and important) in the aftermath of whatever horror has befallen us that we’re readying a punitive nuke, and ensuring that we get world opinion on side.
Aaand while I’m here, you also seem to favour deductive argument, rather than real-world inductive. Thought experiments are great tools sometimes, for sure, but not too applicable here – it’s the messy realities that are stripped away in thought experiments that are essential to examine here.
Examples: ‘It works for Israel so it should work for us?’; and ‘The B-2’s an excellent low level penetrator, so cruise missiles must be as well’. And other absolute shockers from the past, best forgotten…. :P
* * *
WiseApe: I’m not too fussy an eater, but most seafood’s pretty f*cking gruesome to me… however, if some swarthy Spaniard snuck up on me, and ‘ad me nice bit of ‘addock off me plate, I’d!…
Apologies for the late (early?) reply. From about September to January, from about roughly 6pm Sunday till 4:45am Monday the world according to Chris.B. shuts down in observance of the religion otherwise known as the American Football season.
@ Phil,
“Fair point I misread you, you were talking about Turkey and Syria” [calling it a minor issue]
— Indeed. And as far as our domestic security and the threat to our soil, which is what broadly speaking this thread is about, it is a minor point. Syria is embroiled in a vicious civil war, Turkey is defending its corner, and maybe we’ll get roped into an intervention of some form. But the threat to us, here in the UK, from that situation is currently very low.
@ APATS,
“Your childish little paragraph about dark blue and green uniforms is certainly not backed up by my posts on this site”
— But it is. You’re always telling us that service chiefs/officers make decisions based purely on rational thought processes, sarcastically suggesting that maybe people in uniform know a thing or two.
But now you’re accusing these army chiefs of playing games and not using their professional judgement. Except most of them that have spoken out are already retired and stand little to gain by siding against Trident. They haven’t argued that the Trident funds should be converted into regiments, not that I’ve seen.
They must be smart enough to realise that the savings of removal of trident would more likely be invested in shiny kit for either the Navy or Air Force. And if they were talking about arguing against a similar capability possessed by another service, I might agree with you that it was just trying to game the system. But if they really believed Trident, or indeed the mere possession of nuclear weapons was desirable and necessary, I can’t believe they’d seriously argue for their removal.
Maybe if they were arguing along the lines of “let the army handle the deterrent” or some similar “we can do what that other service does, so they don’t need toy x” again, you could have a point. But I just don’t see how this situation can be translated as trying to work the system in their favour.
Equally that throws the door open for saying that Admirals only want it replaced to keep cash in their service. If it’s good for one side it’s good for the other.
@ Jonesy,
“That hardly amounts to what you said though does it?”
— It’s precisely what I said, that the RUSI analysed the argument that you need to continuously build submarines to maintain the stock of skilled personnel, and found it to be an argument with very serious question marks hanging over it.
Besides, the yard itself need not shut down. It can be used for other stuff. The Albion class was built in Barrow. You could probably build Type 26 in there, especially if the Scots decide to go Independent and the government decides to stick two fingers up and pull out the last Labour lots defence industrial strategy, by arguing that ship building needs to stay in the UK. Bye, bye Scottish yards, hello Barrow.
“BAE would shut Barrow in a heartbeat if there is no work after Astute-7.”
— Block any sale of the facility, let the price depress, buy it yourself. Turn it into a national asset. Where there’s a will, there’s a way.
“Skilled people need jobs requiring those skills. Theres possibly the nuclear/power generation industry they could go to in the region but what else?”
— You realise the nuclear engineers etc form a small part of the workforce whose fairly unique skills would be in great demand, especially with two nuclear sites close by? Most of the work force will be electricians, plumbers, fitters, welders, crane operators etc. People who have skills that are highly transferable to new companies in need of these workmen and women.
“What the Govt gets for its subsidies is also, going by the Astute, a top class defence product that we have a requirement for in the service. Its called ‘win-win’ to all but the most short-sighted”
— What it gets is additional costs laid at its door that it currently cannot afford with its present approach to budgetary importance (prioritising DfID/ring fencing many sectors like health and education).
The loss of all the spending in the town is also of dubious validity. Barrow has quite a significant off shore industry building up that requires all the kind of skills that former BAE employees could bring to the table, plus the two nuclear sites mentioned above. With that skilled work force shifting to commercial enterprise, you might actually see the reverse, and see Barrow (the town) grow significantly as it attracts inward investment.
“Billions going where though!!!. Back into our own bloody economy!”
— As they would if they were spent elsewhere on domestic projects or concerns. Even billions not spent by the government has an impact, because you can reduce taxation or pay down the debt, which benefits the UK in the long run. If you want to create training for youths then spend the money on an apprenticeship scheme.
“The Aussies are meant to be consulting BAE Barrow on their Collins replacement at the moment”,
— Actually I think they’re looking at German, Spanish and French SSK’s, with a US combat system. I think they want some sort of modified design. Aussie Johno is probably the best person to ask about that.
“Instead of a real potential success story here you want to give the US a sack of readies and let them deal with it?. Not American by any chance are you??.”
— Not American, no. Love their football and some of their TV shows, but that’s about it. You’re not talking about a success story though. You’re talking about the effective government subsidy of a facility that has no other customers.
@ The Other Chris,
“You reached the wrong conclusion on the budget details and based a riposte on that. I’m discussing the £60b rebalance potential from the £10b cuts. You’re discussing the £60b unemployment impact figure discussed in the news article”
— Let me refresh your memory about what you proposed; “That targeted £10b worth of benefits reduction, if conversion is complete, frees at least £60b in return for spending elsewhere. This is achieved through a combination of removed payouts, direct taxation, employer contributions and spending revenue.”
Or in other words you suggested cutting peoples benefits, hoping that it would get the back to work, where you can tax them and their employers, generating £60bn.
A figure which you derived from the stated costs of all those unemployed people.
The only difference between the House of Commons version and the newspaper version you put up is that the newspaper version is – in your own words – distilled.
The time for you to back track out of this and pretend you didn’t suggest it was probably before you actually wrote it. The fact is now it’s done and its been shown as a complete and utter fallacy. If you want to try and cover it up, or pretend it didn’t happen then be my guest, but I think it’s fairly clear from what you wrote.
“yet not tackling the issues at hand, not venturing serious solutions of your own, not answering the question posed and missing the key details in the evidence provided”
— The issue at hand was your wildly over stated expected benefit, you posed no question and the evidence provided shows that your argument for ‘re-balancing’ is completely off the scale of practicallity, somewhere up there with cold fusion and faster than light travel.
Now as for a serious solution. If you want to get those people off benefits and back in work you have to tackle it from multiple angles. The incapacity benefit system needs to adapt such that only clear evidence provided by a doctor or other medical expert will suffice, along with semi-regular assessments, carried out either by your GP or a suitable expert in a hospital.
As for the medically fit, but unemployed? The answer is simple; jobs. These people need jobs. No good pretending you can shuffle 2.5 million people back into work when they can’t find jobs. As you brought up Keynes, we’ll go there.
Simply put, I think Keynesian style theories about infrastructure investment are long out of date. Those systems worked brilliantly about 70-80 years ago when construction was a labour intensive task, as were the supporting industries like steel and energy.
These days those industries are all much leaner. The biggest employers in the UK are service industries. If you want to generate jobs, and actual jobs that unemployed people can apply for an compete for, then you have to figure out a way of pumping money into the retail/service sector. A VAT cut would be a good start. Or giving the money to local councils, to be used as bounty payments for stores that set up in town centres. Maybe business rates rebates for certain businesses?
“you still haven’t answered whether you think marinising the Merlin causes a significant enough reduction in performance to affect the performance required for a mission…”
— Clearly your memory is suffering along with your accounting, or you’d remember that I absolutely agreed that marinising Merlin caused performance issues. Mainly on the back of the fact that when you add additional dead weight to a helicopter, it generally has a tendency to affect performance. Further “a mission” is a very broad term. It could mean just flying a few miles to taxi some troops about, or it could mean a sortie out close to the maximum range of the helicopter. Obviously in the first case it makes a marginal difference and in the second it has a greater impact.
“But this is what you usually do, launch personal attacks at those who attempt to provide you with a learning opportunity…”
— Odd statement, because it was you that went down that route first (“however given track record I suggest you have a gander at a distilled form, though I don’t hold out much hope you’ll read it let alone digest the significance” [sic]) (“I await the inevitable yet tedious blow by blow dissection of the above paragraphs in ways that are inconsequential to the topic at hand,”).
But that seems to be a growing trend on here lately; personally attack someone or make some condescending statement without provocation, then two hours later tell them that they should stop using personal attacks. This one gained bonus points for coming just two paragraphs after a personal attack. And an Ed Milliband based insult at that.
In your case, your condescending and arrogant post was met with a return shot. You have an air of “I’m a great lecturer sharing my vast knowledge with a simple pleb”, normally delivered in the same post in which you make a monumental fuck up in accounting, as you did earlier.
Face it, you made an absolutely absurd miscalculation, which fell down in spectacular fashion in the face of your own evidence, moments after trying to take the high ground as some professor of economics.
Unless you come up with some truly spectacular number crunching your program is going nowhere. Fast.
“Although 0.5% does indeed keep adding up (you’re right there) we’re only talking about a single 0.5% programme here”
— Do you not see what you just did?
You accepted that all these programs add up eventually, and then proceeded to plead that your 0.5% is a special case, it’s only 0.5% after all, honest gov. You agree that people all trying to slip their pet projects through government soon adds up, then immediately turn around and try it yourself. Unbelievable.
“Not only that, but it’s a sovereign project with the direct tax clawback (your own advice sets this at 20%-40%) and there’s strong arguments for a Keynesian investment effect, resulting in potentially more growth in the economy than that spent on development”
— See above about my opinion on Keynesian investment. The direct claw back argument is really only of validity when you’re talking about a British product versus an entirely (or mostly) foreign product, like when the subject of Blackhawks and Hornets come up.
Sovereign projects would have to be measured against each other on their own merits. For example a sovereign project that focuses almost exclusively on things like raising public sector wages has more of an effect than spending that money on a private company, because you remove the loss to profit margins and business expenses that might go over seas. You might even get close to hitting that 40% end of the clawback, but it’s diffcult to assess without hard figures.
@ TsZ52,
“If not, then I hate to break it to you chief, but most people *are* not just ‘incredibly dumb’ but absolutely bedrock f*cking imbecilic stupid. They’re empty vessels passively waiting to be filled by the media”
— Which is why newspapers, and the media in general, have such an excellent reputation with the public as being sources of accurate fact? Most people don’t even trust the accuracy of the crossword in their daily newspaper (and occassionally – sadly – with good reason).
“(including the ‘left/liberal’ f*ckwits, who also know flat zilch about weapons and tactics, or human nature)”
— Minor point, but I suspect, just at a guess, that the armed forces contain a share of liberals. Could be wrong though.
“… and it’ll just feeeel too excessive to most of the rest (the same types of folks who were uneasy at the ‘Gotcha!’ headline, though massively in favour of our prosecution of the conflict).”
— I suspect if an enemy nation (itself or via proxy) used some sort of CRBN weapon on UK soil, you’d have to work bloody hard to convince the public that any response was too excessive. Especially so given the fact that a lot of people in this country essentially support killing burglars, even after they’ve long ceased to be a serious threat.
I also think the back lash against the ‘Gotcha’ headline was not so much against the act committed by the sub itself, but rather the tasteless headline, that seemed to revel just a little too much in the deaths of over 300 people, enemy or not.
“This will apply equally to the governments and likes of the UN who will be responsible for blessing (or not opposing) this *strictly* limited punitive retaliation”
— The UN tends to take a particularly dim view of any killing. It’s also generally accepted that the use of, or threat to use, nuclear weapons is probably a breach of international law. Again, the UN takes a dim view of breaches of that. I suspect that while an ally might stand up and defend the right of the UK to retaliate against an attack, and maybe even the other UNSC permanent members, the rest of the UN will not give its blessing to any form of counter strike, now matter how limited.
“Most people (>90%?) will assume that a Trident has a single warhead anyway, unless told otherwise, so the media doesn’t have much work to do here”
— That might have worked a little better before the cat was let out of the bag that our missiles come armed with multiple warheads, something which has been splashed over almost every Trident story since this issue first came up a few years back. The multiple “ground zeros” at the impact point might also give the game away just a little.
“I’m certain that there will be at least one more nuclear strike in human history, and it’s more likely to be us doing it than anyone else”
— On this one, your opinion is your opinion, I’m genuinely just intrigued to know why you think it will be us? Or was that US?
“Thing is Chris, though your quirky interpretations of what folks write sometimes takes us off into WTF!!? batshit territory, you are an extremely well informed and generally rational thinker”
— I guess that’s a sort of compliment. Erm, thank you?
“you also seem to favour deductive argument, rather than real-world inductive”
— Actually where there is a precedent, I prefer the reverse.
“The B-2′s an excellent low level penetrator, so cruise missiles must be as well”
— I’ll leave the complexities of the Israel argument, god knows we don’t want to go down that rabbit hole again.
The B-2 comparison is perfectly valid. The B-52 was designed to go in high. Then SAM’s forced a reversal to low levels and the creation of the B-1. Then interceptors with much better look down systems rendered both somewhat unacceptable. The answer was the B-2; a subsonic, low level penetrator with a low RCS.
Which is pretty much exactly what a cruise missile is, especially with the newer generations like Storm Shadow and whatever that new yank thing is that I can’t remember the name of (and Wikipedia is too much effort right now) coming on stream. Obviously they’re not on the same level as a B-2, not that we know of, but the principle of operation and survival is pretty much the same.
@Chris.B.
Well, I extended the olive branch… I can see why so many folks here give up on you. Deconstructing the speaker does not deconstruct the argument.
You still have not acknowledged the affordability of the programme, which was one of your reasons for not proceeding with it, and you still have not answered the questions posed to you.
@TOC
Give it a rest, that’s 5 different conversations that he has devolved into wallspam and vitrol, and I think I’m a few short on the count.
Out of curiosity, how many here still remember the 4 min warning? :) That was why I asked about age, not to mention that this entire topic was pretty much done to death in the 80s-90s. Unless there was a serious paradigm shift, the old arguments still hold true. Old wine, new wineskin et al.
@Observer
Fair enough, thank you for the advice too.
As for four minute warnings… yeah. I’m also still shaken up about the Death stalks the Canals videos as well.
“Death stalks the Canals” ?
Thank God for the RN then…..
http://www.thisisstaffordshire.co.uk/images/localpeople/ugc-images/275796/Article/images/13304260/3164852.png
Seriously what is it about?
Shall we call it a day at comment 399 chaps, don’t think this is going anywhere
Last word!
I think Chris B and I agree on more in general than we disagree on.
“For what it’s worth I don’t think agreeing is as important as actually having these kind of discussions in the first place.” – Well said Challenger. Would be a bit dull around here if we all agreed with one another.
@Observer – “Out of curiosity, how many here still remember the 4 min warning?” = Like it was only yesterday. I still maintain a gap between the back of the settee and the wall just in case.
TD: Wouldn’t ever want to disrespect the host’s request, but Chris asked me some questions. Any chance that I could have a crack at answering them, in a nice, brief, non-aggie manner (like we were)?
One last roll then,
@ TOC,
“Deconstructing the speaker does not deconstruct the argument”
— I went through your argument and explained why it couldn’t work; Because your funding plans do not add up. If you have alternate figures that you want to try, or a more detailed break down that you think explains the missing billions then by all means. If you want to save some of TD’s memory and free up this thread then by al means you can post it as a reply on my blog. Entirely up to you.
“You still have not acknowledged the affordability of the programme”
— Erm, that was my central point, that you can’t afford it, because the numbers do not add up.
“… and you still have not answered the questions posed to you.”
— You posed one question, what would I do differently? I gave you that answer.
@ Observer,
“that’s 5 different conversations that he has devolved into wallspam and vitrol”
— I think I’ll just remind you briefly that in all cases, the “vitrol” was started against me. Call it a counter strike if you like? As for Spam, I’m juggling discussions with about 5-6 different people. I could do a separate post for each person, but that would probably be more “spammy”. Generally speaking though, when people ask you questions on a forum, it’s considered good form to offer them answers. That’s called replying.
I get it, you’re not interested in the answers and you don’t especially like me. Fine. But that doesn’t make my responses spam, just because you’re not interested in them. I’m trying to hold multiple discussions simultaneously, so just skip past them if you dont want to read them.
“Out of curiosity, how many here still remember the 4 min warning?”
— Our local fire station was reponsible for it. A very erie, ww2 esque sounding siren, that was then relegated to flood warning and has since been removed. Or at the very least it’s not tested anymore.
@ Phil,,
“I think Chris B and I agree on more in general than we disagree on”
— Agreed.
@ TSZ52
“Wouldn’t ever want to disrespect the host’s request, but Chris asked me some questions. Any chance that I could have a crack at answering them, in a nice, brief, non-aggie manner (like we were)?”
— Aye.
Something to cheer up Chris B…..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19957466
There’s everything on YouTube………
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbTJ0WUEmWI&feature=plcp
haha,
lol gotta like it when people beef up the cold war era (aka 4 min warning) as some sort of knife-edge thing… jeez…give them a medal immediately! Then again, each generation would say the same thing.
My dad was in Berlin throughout the 80’s (arguably the scariest period) and apart from being given the evils at by sov guards, he had a good time… especially in the inter service footie.
This thread is like T26 and other big-ticket things, huge debate of differing opinions to a point of dead-lock. An interesting read alright. But something that seems to just go on and on.
x
Your remark again reminds me of BBC’s “threads”… but a curious article… leads me to think, would an SSBN ever be saved as a museum piece? Is there even a T boat going to be preserved? There is at least MoD acknowledgement that the Invincible class needs some heritage preservation.
@Mike – Very interesting suggestion re preserving an SSBN. However, I suspect the word “nuclear” might deter (oh dear, no pun intended) the average tourist.
The 80s in Berlin the scariest period?
So, the whole Berlin Wall getting built in the 60s and the Cuban Missile Crisis were flashes in the pan??!
Whilst glasnost, perestroika, the disintegration of the WARPAC, the bringing down of the wall, the removal of TAC NUKES and the withdrawal of Soviet troops from East Germany as well as a public announcement of taking a more recognisably defensive posture were terrifying events that saw the blokes crashed out on Active Edge, knocking windows out of various Hauses with the butts of their soon defunct SLRs with cries of “Don’t you know there’s a Cold War on!”.
@Phil
Yep – lol I could go on a lecture, but wont. Again, like the subject of this thread; its all about opinion.
Though I was talking about the whole decade… not the end of it ;)
@Wiseape
Indeed…a reactor would make such a costly and difficult process… but it does seem sad that the silent service is rather under-represented; sure an aircraft carrier is grand… but our Submarine service is arguably one of the Navy’s most sharp end capabilities…like the Mine Hunters.
@Mike – absolutely agree, but as far as the submarine goes I think the cost of converting a boat into a worthwhile exhibit would just be too prohibitive. Question is, do we go for something solemn or more “touristy?” I like what they’ve done with the Sunderland flying boat at Hendon. At least a memorial should be considered.
@ Mike Re: Nuclear submarines as museums.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Courageous_(S50)
The heritage of the Cold War period is a minor interest for me. I have visited various bunkers (both preserved and, um, in use?) and they all gave me the hibbie jibbies. What always gets me is how innocuous their entrances tend to be. Our local authorities’ bunker’s entrance is through a very plain unsigned door next to two equally innocuous doors (cleaners’ cupboard and document store). At the top of my gran’s field their was a ROC post where members of the corps would have recorded the destruction of the large conurbation to my east. Never ever got in when it was commission, they were always a bit stuffy about OSA….
This may be of interest,
http://www.subbrit.org.uk/
@X – Deeply embarrassed to say I knew nothing about Courageous being a museum, despite having had a drinking buddy who served on her in the early 80s. Sadly we’ve lost touch.
x, I went into a ROC post once, when it was in service
Very weird
@ Wise Ape
TBH I have never visited her. My dad would love to a visit a nuclear submarine. He doesn’t believe me when I say if you’ve seen one, you’ve seen them all. :)
@ TD
It is a sobering thought that had Armageddon come back in the Cold War a good portion of the “survivors” would have be ‘plane spotters……
There wasn’t much in the post. A civilian being given a tour of a ship would have probably “seen” (but be unaware of) stuff much more sensitive. Again it was the appearance of the post that always got me. In a patch of rough land was a fenced off area with mowed grass, white washed concrete, green painted metal, etc. etc. like somebody had randomly transported a tiny slice of an army or navy and just dropped it a random.
re Nuclear Submarine Museum
France first nuclear ballistic missile submarine ‘Le Redoutable’ is now on display at the ‘Cité de la Mer’ museum at Cherbourg.
http://www.citedelamer.com/les-espaces-de-la-cite-de-la-mer/le-redoutable/
from wikipedia …
The Redoutable had a 20-year duty history, with 51 patrols. She was decommissioned in 1991. In 2000, she was removed from the water in a purpose built dry dock, and over two years was made into an exhibition. This was a monumental task, the biggest of which was removing the Nuclear Reactor and replacing the midsection with an empty steel tube. This opened in 2002, where she is used as a museum ship at the Cité de la Mer in Cherbourg, being now the largest submarine open to the public
Could we mount a Vanguard sub on end, on a stone plinth?
If anyone’s interested, a presentation on the Ohio replacement has emerged blinking into the sunlight :
http://news.usni.org/news-analysis/news/ohio-class-replacement-details
http://news.usni.org/news-analysis/news/ohio-class-replacement
Question is: if this “is not, is not,” a multi mission platform will there need to be a separate development of an ‘Arsenal ship’ / SSGN to replace the modified Ohios currently in use in that role?
Or will the new design also be adaptable to carrying conventional Land Attack Cruise Missiles in its missile compartment?
Maybe the “is not, is not” just means it won’t also try to be an attack submarine or ninja delivery system? In which case: sensible call.
…Doctor, we have signs of life!!!
WTF!??! It is bigger than a Virginia! Don’t these Yanks read Think Defence? ;)
@El Sid – interesting link, thanks. I note they’re maintaining crew of 155, same as Ohio.
Oops, wrong link – I meant the direct link to the slides :
http://news.usni.org/news-analysis/documents/ohio-replacement-program
@PE
will there need to be a separate development of an ‘Arsenal ship’ / SSGN to replace the modified Ohios currently in use in that role?
No. SSGN-ness is not being replaced directly, instead the capability is being smeared out across the SSN fleet with the Virginia Payload Module from about 2020 – and it’s not as though the pre-Block 5 boats have no TLAM/swimmer capability, even if it’s not quite as elegant as the VPM. Anyway, PGS is the real excitement there.
@x
Despite your straw men, slide 9 looks suspiciously like the bits from a Virginia wrapped around a couple of CMCs. Which is what the actual talk on TD has been about rather than what you imagine it to be….
@ El Sid
No I am pretty sure that some here are pretty convinced that all is needed is a cut and shut job on Astute for the V-boat replacement. The fact that you think ring on a digram means the propulsor from a Virginia class will be sufficient for a boat of nearly three three times the displacement means you probably don’t know your bow from your aft end. Actually you probably couldn’t find your aft end if you had a map. Now kindly foxtrot oscar…….
In defence of the Triad:
http://defense.aol.com/2012/11/01/keep-best-blend-of-icbms-boomers-bombers-we-can-afford-the/
Does the US army still have nuclear tipped shells in its artillery?
Hi, WiseApe. No. I think Russia still has them, though not deployed.
I’m going to throw a real controversial Idea in the ring… The idea of a Deterrent is that people think we have a credible one, If we ever come to have to use this by definition it has failed. It is the ultimate in poker “Bluff”.
I remember from Shrivenham, “that you don’t need a real minefield to make an enemy pause for thought, you just need a press release saying you’ve created one”.
What if we bluffed that we had a Nuclear Deterrent? Is anyone ever going to be 100% sure we don’t have one or we do? Even if the evidence points to the Contrary? How do you define or put a value on credible?
Comparing the UK military in terms of GDP to someone like say Brazil who overtook our GDP this year, is an interesting Exercise. Many of our Defence hang ups are from the past and we cannot reconcile our size in economic power, to our own self-worth, influence and International Obligations (like a permanent seat on the UN Security Council). The UK has aspirations and obligations that in many ways are beyond our means and based on our power 70 years ago. Something has to give, you can count on one hand the number of Nuclear detonations in anger. Is it necessary? Could we spend the money on something else or something we might actually use? Can you win a Nuclear Exchange? I’m not advocating any particular stance, but it does raise a rye smile when I think of how much money we spend on the Ultimate “Bluff Card”.
“Could we spend the money on something else or something we might actually use?” – What a shocking suggestion! Buy more useful stuff indeed :-o