[Closed] Trident submarines without the missiles

Does that mean we can turn it into tourists attraction?

They commonly are when the peace campers get a bit lairy.

Dunno what the attraction is, they're dark, cramped and smell of seamen. (Don't step in the prawn crackers)

The idea that we could spend Billions building successor, and then not actually arm it is a nonsense - I'm sure even Corbyn understands this.

Ironically the current V-boats do have limited multi-role capability, however rumour has it that successor will be stripped back to only serve one purpose.

The vote to replace the V-boats will go through, the industry is working away on Successor as if the order had already been placed.

the industry is working away on Successor as if the order had already been placed.

You mean the orders that have already been placed to carry out design work?

It's funny because the idea of having submarines but not arming them simply highlights the absurdity of the entire nuclear weapons issue. The simple point is that we don't need them. Aside from the fact that were they ever to be used then they've failed in their primary purpose, there is pretty much no scenario in which the UK would use a nuclear weapon independently of it's allies. So even in terms of deterrence, there's no reason to have an independent capability.

Corbyn needs to be very careful with this. The majority of people who are opposed to Trident are opposed to it because of the crazy amount of money spent on it in a time of austerity, not because they are primarily morally against nuclear weapons. If Corbyn continues with this idea he could see a lot of his support dissolve. In any case I'm pretty sure it's a political manoeuvre to keep the unions in check in the short term whilst he can mobilise his support to deliver the policy he really wants.

the industry is working away on Successor as if the order had already been placed.

You mean the orders that have already been placed to carry out design work?

Yep - they're spending a lot of money designing something that might not even get built!

Either have nukes or dont but dont have the subs without nukes. That is like buying a bike and not bothering to get wheels
Pointless and expensive

freeagent - MemberYep - they're spending a lot of money designing something that might not even get built!

Well of course they are, the lead times are far too long to sit and wait for the final decision and Chain Reaction Submarines hasn't opened yet.

dazh - Member
The simple point is that we don't need them.

Know more than the security services?

Aside from the fact that were they ever to be used then they've failed in their primary purpose

Primary purpose is 'deterrent', difficult to tell exactly who/what they have deterred over the years - but we're all still here so they might be doing a cracking job!

[quote=dazh ]It's funny because the idea of having submarines but not arming them simply highlights the absurdity of the entire nuclear weapons issue. The simple point is that we don't need them. Aside from the fact that were they ever to be used then they've failed in their primary purpose

No, it really doesn't. I understand how this is a difficult concept, but their primary purpose is to assure that they will never be used - if we don't have them then it opens up the possibility of a situation where they might be used if we had them, which wouldn't happen if we did have them...

(which is always assuming that there is such a real threat to us - something I'm not convinced by, but that doesn't mean you can dismiss the argument for them in the way you're trying to).

[quote=freeagent ]Yep - they're spending a lot of money designing something that might not even get built!

Much like lots of other defence stuff - and I'm not even referring to big headline cancellations like TSR2. All sorts of stuff goes to a design concept stage before decisions are made on whether to progress, I've been involved in some where there was nothing wrong with the design and no failings elsewhere but the decision was simply made not to progress with the project.

As for Corbyn's Vanguard replacement without Trident replacement idea - it has to be about the daftest thing he's come out with yet - and despite not being a JC hater, I have to say that isn't a very short list. It marks a significant point to me - it's the point when I'll finally admit what most people have been saying, that he has no hope of ever even contesting a GE if this is the sort of idea he comes out with - it's not that it's a bad idea, but that he's completely missed the point.

difficult to tell exactly who/what they have deterred over the years - but we're all still here so they might be doing a cracking job!

Most think these weapons, at the height of the cold war, came very close to making MAD* a reality

* Mutual Assured Destruction

I understand how this is a difficult concept, but their primary purpose is to assure that they will never be used - if we don't have them then it opens up the possibility of a situation where they might be used if we had them, which wouldn't happen if we did have them...

Yes, I fully understand deterrence theory, and don't necessarily disagree with it. My point though was that we don't need to maintain an independent deterrent. If we accept for argument sake that a deterrent is necessary, then within NATO we only need one capability, not 3, and it could be managed on a much smaller and cheaper scale, and the money we save could be redirected to the other much greater existential threat of climate change.

Estimates of the cost of four new ballistic missile subs vary wildly, with some sources suggesting circa £30bn, others are attempting to account for the inevitable bloat that comes with these huge projects and put the cost at nearer £50bn.

Also it is worth remembering that all of our previous, decommissioned nuclear boats are sitting in Devonport awaiting disposal - the MOD has yet to decide on how it will get rid of the contaminated reactors.

This means that the cost of safe decommissioning of our ex-nuclear sub fleet has yet to be accounted for.

Given that the rest of Europe (France excepted) has thus far managed to evade nuclear attack from the Soviet Union, China or North Korea, you'd forgive me for thinking that our Trident programme is a massive white elephant.

Indeed, given the choice between splashing out on four ballistic missile subs or spending the money feeding people on low incomes or having a rail service we can afford then I'm all for scrapping Trident.

However, replacing the subs like for like but arming them with conventional weapons is utterly ridiculous IMHO.

@dazh That would only work if NATO as a central organisation held both the fundraising power and the keys. As it is (and rightly so in a democracy) national governments retain these, so the 'one capability' argument cannot apply, since America could potentially decide to 'sit the next one out' at any time.

Given that the rest of Europe (France excepted) has thus far managed to evade nuclear attack from the Soviet Union, China or North Korea, you'd forgive me for thinking that our Trident programme is a massive white elephant.

Well, one could argue that the Ukraine WAS invaded by Russia. Ukraine had previously given up its nuclear weapons unilaterally.

The thing is, though. Suppose the Ukraine DID did still have its nukes? Would it have used them? Obviously not - Russia would simply have destroyed them through massively overpowering force.

The UK nuclear force is roughly equivalent in terms of firepower to what Ukraine had.

So, yes, a completely white elephant.

Rachel

allthegear - Member
A Trident submarine is only good at one job; finding somewhere to hang out and then being extraordinarily quiet and unobserved until told it has to go play with the special fireworks.

It isn't capable of any other role. It's not fast, it's not particularly nimble, nothing a multi-role submarine needs to be.

To make the Replacement so would increase the cost many, many times.

Rachel

That's completely untrue. The Vanguard class boats were so expensive as they were designed to do everything. They're fast, agile, very quite and well armed. They were designed to evade the enemy until their payload was required and, once launched, proceed to hunt and kill other submarines.

The successor program isn't like that, they're supposed to be an SLBM launch platform only.

My apologies - I assumed Vanguard was largely the same as Successor

so the 'one capability' argument cannot apply, since America could potentially decide to 'sit the next one out' at any time.

I'm sorry but that's just a silly argument made up to support us replacing Trident. Are you really suggesting that the US would sit on the sidelines if the UK was attacked by nukes? Aside from the fact they're duty-bound by the NATO treaty to become involved, it's completely ludicrous to think that could ever happen. As for the politics of it, there are plenty of examples where national governments have transferred power to an international body, why not also with deploying nuclear weapons?

Also, and I don't know if it has already been mentioned, but the major adnavtage of the Astute class (attack subs as most are referring to them as) is their ability to insert and recover Special Forces and then support them with close in fire support in the form of cruise missiles.

Given our maritime commitment and the impending arrival of the carrier (to which at least 1 submarine may be permanently assigned as escort) the requirement for the already reduced Astute class will be higher, but repurposing Successor for the same role as Astute (but with more Tomohawks, like the SSGNs of the USN) is just stupid.

allthegear - Member
My apologies - I assumed Vanguard was largely the same as Successor

No need to apologise, Rach; I was just elucidating.

Aside from the fact they're duty-bound by the NATO treaty to become involved

They didn't exactly rush to our aid in the Falklands. America operates in it's own interests and that's it, I wouldn't rely on them for anything treaty or no treaty.

They didn't exactly rush to our aid in the Falklands.

An Argentinian ship pulling up in Port Stanley is not exactly the same as London being vapourised is it? Interesting that the antis are often accused of pie-in-the-sky naivety when a lot of the pro arguments are even more ridiculous.

The US tacitly supported British forces operating from Ascension Island, were do you think the (free) fuel came from to enable Victor/Vulcan missions in the South Atlantic?

Also, the Americans supplied the then brand new AIM-9L missile to the Royal Navy, giving Sea Harrier pilots a major tactical advantage.

Estimates of the cost of four new ballistic missile subs vary wildly, with some sources suggesting circa £30bn, others are attempting to account for the inevitable bloat that comes with these huge projects and put the cost at nearer £50bn.

It is easy to include/exclude various factors to suit your aims when costing these projects.
They are always costed low initially in order to get the green light.

However part of the increased costs recently announced during the strategic defence review were due to extending the life of the current Trident force.
HMS Vanguard is currently being refurbished, and it is possible they may need to do as many as 3 in order to keep continuity while successor comes on-line.

The V-class boats are only fuelled for approx. 15 years, Vanguard is approaching 30 years old and will be refuelled for another 15 years.

The Astute class is the first UK submarine which was fuelled for life - Successor will be the same.

Are you really suggesting that the US would sit on the sidelines if the UK was attacked by nukes?

There's a very significant chance that they would sit on the sidelines if, for example, Russian forces rolled west into Poland, were met with fierce NATO opossition, and resorted to CW or tactical nuclear to clear the way. Resultant civilian losses would be unprecedented, this remains the classic 'escalation' scenario

Aside from the fact they're duty-bound by the NATO treaty to become involved, it's completely ludicrous to think that could ever happen.

As for the politics of it, there are plenty of examples where national governments have transferred power to an international body, why not also with deploying nuclear weapons?

There's a very significant chance that they would sit on the sidelines if, for example, Russian forces rolled west into Poland, were met with fierce NATO opossition, and resorted to CW or tactical nuclear to clear the way

so you are saying that nuclear deterrent doesnt work then?

No, I'm saying it has worked as well as it has precisely because French and UK independent control of nuclear weapons have tied the US in to the outcome.

I like it!
A military which can get by with nothing but strong language and bad thoughts. We can have fast jets with no bombs, destroyers incapable of destroying, attack helicopters with no weapons system (but are really good at flying around). Perhaps sack all front line troops and just keep the support functions going? I mean the chefs will need logistics to deliver their food and the logistics people will need feeding right?

@Wrecker - We could give all the tanks pink paint shells too. Much safer than this DU stuff.

There's a very significant chance that they would sit on the sidelines if, for example

And you guys accuse us lefties of hating the US! So you're arguing that the US would be content to allow the Russians to take over Western Europe? It's like the cold war never happened 🙂

you think that the military should retain absolute command and control over the use of nuclear weapons?

Where did I say that?

@Wrecker - We could give all the tanks pink paint shells too. Much safer than this DU stuff.

so you are saying that nuclear deterrent doesnt work then?

He is correct if anyone use a nuke the deterrent has failed.

No, I'm saying it has worked as well as it has precisely because French and UK independent control of nuclear weapons have tied the US in to the outcome.

There's a very significant chance that the UK and France would sit on the sidelines if, for example, Russian forces rolled west into Poland, were met with fierce NATO opossition, and resorted to CW or tactical nuclear to clear the way

Also the point is it works not because they will use it but because the other side does not know if they will or they wont at the exact point it needs to be used by any definition it has failed as a deterrent

So you're arguing that the US would be content to allow the Russians to take over Western Europe?

If they felt that it was the best way to avoid a strike on the US mainland, absolutely they would.

TBH - I think we would too, if say Poland was invaded we’d protest strongly but not go nuclear over it - I’m sure of that.

Rachel

, I'm saying it has worked as well as it has precisely because French and UK independent control of nuclear weapons have tied the US in to the outcome.

Please explain as that does not make sense !

If they felt that it was the best way to avoid a strike on the US mainland, absolutely they would.

The period between 1945-1990 would suggest otherwise.

- I think we would too, if say Poland was invaded we’d protest strongly but not go nuclear over it - I’m sure of that.

So having a nuclear deterrent IS pointless

Russia has no qualms about taking the Crimea or Eastern Ukraine

Maybe they are going to replace the missile tubes with wheelie bins full of shit.

If that is the case it would probably be best to hire these guys and spend the money saved on the NHS.

double trouble

[url= http://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/apr/19/russia.comment ]Soviet threat was a myth[/url]

It is worth remembering also that there's been a huge botch-job involving our carrier force; you know, the one that's intended to protect the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands.

The lessons learned from the Cold War and Falklands conflict resulted in the recommendation that the Royal Navy should have two carriers in the 65,000 ton class capable of carrying 36-40 aircraft each.

Costs ballooned, capabilities were trimmed and we went with the cheapest option - equipping both carriers with ski-jumps and STOVL jets at the expense of range, payload and most importantly long range AWACS capability as Hawkeye type aircraft require a catapult to launch. Then the Tories/Liberals binned the entire Harrier fleet in 2010.

One of the very few sensible decisions from the 2010 Defence Review was to equip one or both the new carriers with EMALS catapults and opt for F-35C jets and a carrier-borne AWACS platform. Had the F-35 become a giant white elephant (coughs) for example, we could have bought Super Hornets or Rafales and inter-operated US Navy / Marine Nationale jets.

But quibbling over a few million pounds more for fitting EMALS saw the reversal of this decision, so the only two options available are either to rebuy the Harriers we sold the US at a huge discount and retrain pilots to fly them, or to hope that the wildly expensive F-35B somehow delivers on it's design promises.

[quote=dazh ]Are you really suggesting that the US would sit on the sidelines if the UK was attacked by nukes?

It doesn't really matter what anybody here thinks - the question is whether those who might be put off by the deterrent think the US would sit on the sidelines. The interesting thing is that it's the very arguments put forwards by those against nuclear weapons which might lead them to think the US would stay out of it - would the US think "hang on, what's the point in turning that lot into a desert when it won't stop them doing what they've already done, and would just result in them turning us into a desert". It's not at all simple.

[quote=Junkyard ]Also the point is it works not because they will use it but because the other side does not know if they will or they wont at the exact point it needs to be used by any definition it has failed as a deterrent

Almost - the other side has to have some realistic expectation that they would be used, rather than simply not knowing. Otherwise you'll get somebody mad enough* to take the chance.

* I [b]did not[/b] mention Putin

the question is whether those who might be put off by the deterrent think the US would sit on the sidelines.

As I said before, I understand the game theory stuff about deterrence, you don't need to repeat it all here. The question rather is how to maintain a minimum level of deterrence. Some of us are suggesting that if it's required at all, a nuclear deterrant could still be maintained without the UK renewing Trident.

Here's an idea, why not place a single nuclear warhead in each major city of the US, Western Europe, China and Russia. Then give all countries involved a failsafe mechanism of detonating every bomb. Deterrence would be achieved with only a couple of hundred bombs and a bit of fancy telecommunications technology. Same result, and much cheaper and simpler 🙂

Maybe we could still have the missiles and just put no nuclear in them?
More jobs saved!

[quote=dazh ]As I said before, I understand the game theory stuff about deterrence, you don't need to repeat it all here. The question rather is how to maintain a minimum level of deterrence. Some of us are suggesting that if it's required at all, a nuclear deterrant could still be maintained without the UK renewing Trident.

Sure, but some people on here don't - and I'm assuming you don't mean an alternative independent deterrent, as nobody seems to be suggesting that, in which case one argument against that serving the same purpose as an independent deterrent is the game theory one. You can't negate the game theory arguments by pointing out that you understand them, and if (as also previously) you make an argument against having an independent nuclear deterrent which game theory can be used to refute, then expect the game theory to be mentioned even if you disagree with it.

As I mentioned before, I'm unconvinced of the need for our independent nuclear deterrent on the basis that there isn't a credible threat which it can be used to deter, but many people seem to be using different arguments against it (ie that it's useless even if there is a credible threat), which I don't believe are credible.

The biggest problem with conventional ICBMs and SLBMs is that you cannot tell what sort of warhead is fitted without waiting for the boom. You fire one of those at somebody and they will have to assume they are being nuked. Cruise missiles are more cost effective and generally less prone to "misinterpretation"

Most of the cost associated with the programme is down to the subs and missiles, not the warheads so it still costs lots, just not quite as much.

This is just Corbyn realising that one of his policies will cost lots of jobs (not what Labour should be doing) and he's trying to cover that up rather than grow a spine and stick to his beliefs. As time goes on, he's becoming less the honest man (even if you think he is misguided) and more the slippery politician.

Cruise missiles also carry nuclear warheads

[quote=grumpysculler ]This is just Corbyn realising that one of his policies will cost lots of jobs (not what Labour should be doing) and he's trying to cover that up rather than grow a spine and stick to his beliefs. As time goes on, he's becoming less the honest man (even if you think he is misguided) and more the slippery politician.

Good point - we seem to have drifted from discussing him being a useless numpty onto the far less interesting topic of whether we should have an independent nuclear deterrent. I'm still amazed at the complete lack of thought in this announcement - and more to the point that he's presumably taken no advice (or ignored any he's been given). Personally I'm still undecided which way I'd vote if I got a vote on Trident replacement, but if I had 2 options and one of them was this I'd vote for the alternative.