Clegg: Nuclear Astute is an option

HAVE YOUR SAY

Let's stop kidding ourselves. When Black Arrow was cancelled in 1974 and more recently when the Atomic Weapons establishment was sold to US companies the UK ceased to be an independent nuclear power. A cheaper & truly independent deterrent would be nuclear tipped cruise missiles that could be launched from submarines or aircraft, with British companies designing, building and maintaining the whole system. Or even resurrecting Black Arrow program and accepting the UK would not have a ballistic nuclear deterrent for a decade or so until that was operational. But, please, let's stop the illusion we have had since the late 1960's that US built and maintained ballistic missile systems constitute an independent UK deterrent. They do not!
Martin Bayliss - Stroud

For some reason, 'Astute' & 'Trident' don't seem to belong in the same sentence. This has MRA4 written all over it-magnified 50 times.
Chris W - Essex

Last time I checked the missiles are configured by systems on the launch submarine. It doesn't matter where the missiles are made, to argue (rather incorrectly) that the deterrent is not independent. I hate fictitious opinions!

Cruise missiles are easily intercepted due to the lower flight profile in all respects compared to ballistic missiles. Therefore you cannot call it a deterrent. The USA does, but they have a deterrent triad.

Building an industry to supply nuclear capable cruise missiles is not economically viable since given the UK only has 160ish warheads (and dropping?) building 160 missiles would be prohibitive. You have not considered that platforms with such weapons embarked would have to increase in number to cover the full mission spectrum since deterrent platforms could not be considered to do defence diplomacy for example. (Any economies of scale are now lost, for less effective system).

I hate repetition, but I truly hate poorly thought out opinions...
Shaun

I agree that the Liberal Democrats' policy is poorly thought out. It seems to be little more than a fudge - a halfway house between disarmament and business as usual.

The savings from an Astute- based nuclear system would not be as high as Nick Clegg seems to think - new submarines would have to be built to undertake nuclear patrols, and a new warhead would have to be designed. As Shaun has said, cruise missiles have less capability than Trident ICBMs.

There is an increasing lack of appetite among the public - and also senior military figures - for nuclear weapons, partly because of a realisation that we will have to make big sacrifices in other areas if we spend money on them in the current economic climate.

The Lib Dems should have had the courage to stand up and say that they would not renew Trident at all, in support of President Obama's global disarmament agenda.
John Potter - Leeds

Dear John and Shaun,

Far from attacking and criticising Nick Clegg’s thinking, and I am by no means a supporter of the Liberal Democrats, I think that he should be applauded for making the first sensible suggestion in this discussion from any political leader thus far.

Trident II is £25bn worth of nothing. I’ll repeat that IT DELIVERS NOTHING.

Nuclear tipped Block IV Tomahawk Cruise missiles, fitted with the W80/84 "dial-a-yield" warheads do not need an entire industry behind them supporting it. It is virtually an off the shelf 5-150kt physics package which is fitted to the near front end of the missile body. Fired from Astute submarines, with a range of 1600km, ensures that 96% of the world’s population are within its target.

Astute submarines, based on the projected cost of boats 2 & 3 are around £1bn a piece. Very little work would be required to adapt the Astute to fire nuclear tipped Tomahawks, as this platform already fires the conventional variant.

The trajectory of a cruise missile is as Shaun states lower in profile, but in the twenty years since they were first fired, exactly how many have been intercepted, less than 5 or 6. In a scenario where you needed to absolutely get a weapon through as either a first strike or retaliatory attack, you’d probably fire enough weapons to get them through.

Trident missiles, are a 50 year concept, conceived when the circular error probability (CEP) was measured in hundreds of meters, thus requiring higher yield weapons to destroy hardened underground facilities. With Cruise, you measure CEP in meters, thus the yield can be lower.

The Astute submarines, hold 36 weapons, 20 Tomahawks, and 16 Spearfish torpedos. To build a fleet of 6 submarines with lets say 160 missiles, would cost £7bn, a saving of some £18bn.

If the MOD was able to save £18bn from its Major Equipment programme, it would be able to replenish the escort fleet back upto the 1998 level of 32 ships, add a third CVF, add more amphibious shipping and landing platform helicopters and resurrect the MARS programme, funding it in full.

Furthermore, given that this week, Russia and the United States have just signed the START 3 treaty, further reducing their nuclear arsenals, the United Kingdom, may have to face the prospect in the very near future of negotiating away these awful weapons full stop. If we commit to spending £25bn on a Trident submarine and missile replacement, which performs only one task and we then negotiate away the missiles, we will be left with £25BN OF NOTHING. Vanguard class submarines, or their replacements are one trick ponies.

On the other hand, nuclear tipped Tomahawks, based on Astutes, could also be negotiated away, which would leave us with 6 attack submarines, to join the rest of a much stronger submarine fleet protecting a re-invested far more capable surface fleet.

There are no fictitious or poorly thought out statements or opinions here, just facts, which are properly costed, which would give Britain a minimum nuclear deterrent, and a far stronger navy with which to defend our interests and project power.

This Defence Review, really gives us all the opportunity to think outside of the box, and beyond the same old vested interests in order to address the challenges which the 21st Century will throw at us. I am just putting the finishing touches to an alternative Defence White paper, which I hope to publish in the next month, which I am really looking forward to sharing with all the contributors on this excellent site.
Andy Bruguier - Dartford

If we cancel the nuclear deterrent, then the money will go on quangos, tax credit fraud, aid to China, duckhouses, nappy naggers, etc.
It will not be spent on defence.
Minimum deterrents are a good thing, but Global disarmament hands control of the world to the first dictator with a couple of dozen Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombs. How is that wise?
John Hartley - Woking/Surrey/UK

Andy. Your reply to John and myself is very opinionated, but not for the better. You mention thinking outside the box, when you obviously feel comfortable well inside it's confines. It would appear also you assume that if the UK was to fire a nuclear tipped missile that it would be against a state which has little or minimal counter measures, so your argument of interception is "probably" true (bravo zulu).

However, Nuclear weapon release strategy dictates that such a weapon release would be against a nation of similar offensive capabilities. Hence the countermeasures would be more advanced and capable of missile intercepts (and therefore more likely). I am puzzled too if cruise missiles were the answer for deterrent purposes why 1. The USN is removing their nuclear tipped systems from service (before Prague)? 2. Why emerging nuclear capable nations are researching and producing nuclear capable ballistic missile systems? Thinking laterally the conclusion is simple, ballistic missiles offer the best deterrent value. Deterrent, this is an interesting term. To simplify it in nuclear terms it is defined as a measure which negates possible (nuclear) attack by guaranteeing a response of similar or greater magnitude - The point been, it is never intended for use. I take it you have car insurance?

You mention the W80/84 warhead. Poor choice. This is an american system! So now you just compromised the independent aspect of the deterrent. There are also health risks for the submariners sleeping a few feet from a Pu warhead months on end.

At the end of the day, money should not be a driving factor for deterrents where the cost of not having them is far higher.

START 3 Treaty obligations which haven't been fully disclosed are suspected to have specified the removal of, wait for it, SLCM-N's from russian and american submarines. The reasons? 1. Vulnerability to interception 2. Range 3. Diminished deterrence value 3. Cost (maintenance / replacement).

I do not like the argument that removing ballistic missiles would make available funds for more SSN's, CVF's and escorts. History shows such promises' are never upheld. The UK is a maritime nation and world leader, and as such the best exponent to protect her interests is a properly resourced navy, something politicians since WWII have failed time and time again to realise.
Shaun - Ex-RNZN

WHERE IS BRITISH AMBITION THE 'DISCUSSION' ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT TO RENEW TRIDENT??

Rather than deliberating/postulating how the UK can do better in terms of

1) projecting deterrence internationally; and

2)protecting itself...

All that's being expressed by most prospective politicians and commentators are short-sighted, false-logic strategies... counterproductively profiling Trident renewal as a strictly 'immediate-financial expendature' issue...

The Royal Navy's surface combatants' can only become more and more difficult to defend as anti-ship weapons' technologies evolve...

As we go further into the 21st century the UK will need a substantially bigger, more capable AND VERSATILE subsurface fleet...

Achieving this won't be done by cancelling Trident renewal or by replacing it with a half-baked, politically-driven- INSTEAD OF STRATEGICALLY DRIVEN- substitute...



- AIR POWER FROM THE SEA- THE CASE FOR VANGUARD (TRIDENT) SUCCESSOR CLASS SUBMARINES -

The (Trident missile carrying) Vanguard successor class submarine programme provides a cogent example of a UK defence spending issue that, if done right, would provide the UK with hugely increased capabilities to project deterrence and prosecute conventional and irregular Warfare/counterterrorism operations around the world...

Labour's often stated intentions to substantially reduce the UK's submarine launched nuclear ballistic missile capabilities doesn't require building only 3
Vanguard-successor class subs to 'replace' today's 4 Vanguards since the new subs- at least today- are intended by the Labour govt to each have 25% less
nuclear ballistic missile-tubes than each of today's 4 Vanguards (12 versus 16):

http://www.janes.com/news/defence/naval/jmr/jmr090420_1_n.shtml

If 4 Vanguard successor subs are built (rather than 3) their total number of missile tubes will be only 48 (4 X 12) which equals the total number of missile tubes of 3 of today's Vanguards: 3 X 16= 48...

But why build only 4 Vanguard successors?

At least 8 are needed...

And these new subs are needed to be 'full-sized', IE: 24-missile-tube vessels (similar to the US's Ohio class and Ohio class successor subs), instead of the
strategically-foolish 12-missile-tube models'decreed' by Labour last year...

If 8 Vanguard successor subs were built, 4 of these could be tasked with a (Trident-successor) nuclear ballistic missile submarine (SSBN) role with the other 4 fitted as conventional-warhead Land-attack guided cruise missile ('Tomahawk' or 'Storm Shadow') subs (SSGN's)...

US experiences have shown that 'dual tasking' of this type of submarine can be very productively facilitated:

Between 2002-2008, 4 of the US Navy's 18 Ohio class Trident nuclear ballistic missile carrying subs (SSBN's) were refitted, converting these subs into SSGN's...

22 of each Ohio sub's 24 Trident nuclear ballistic missile tubes were each fitted to accomodate and fire 7 'conventional warhead armed' Tomahawk Land-attack
guided cruise missiles, instead of their previous configuration allowing for 'only' 1 Trident II nuclear ballistic missile to be accomodated per tube...

As a result, each refitted Ohio can be armed with up to 154 Tomahawk cruise missiles (each one carrying a 1000 pound warhead) as compared to the barely 1/2 a dozen maximum number of Tomahawks that the Royal Navy's current nuclear powered Vanguard class (Trident) submarines (SSBNs) and its entering-service/undergoing construction nuclear powered Astute attack subs (SSNs) can be armed with...

The other 2 missile tubes on each refitted US Navy Ohio sub were converted to serve as lockout chambers for Special Forces personnel.

Each of these two missile tube chambers has been equipped to connect to an Advanced US Navy SEAL Delivery System (ASDS) or Dry Deck Shelter (DDS).

Other spaces on each sub have been converted to berth and support 66 Special Forces personnel.

As a result of their retrofits, for over 2-years the 4 refitted Ohio's have been usefully deployed as conventional warhead Tomahawk cruise missile-armed/special forces' units-carrying (SSGN) subs:

"The (US) Navy's Premiere Counterterrorism Tool":

http://www.informationdissemination.net/2008/10/navys-premiere-counterterrorism-tool.html

"Navy Trident Submarine Conversion (SSGN) Program: Background and Issues for Congress" October 02-2008:

http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RS21007_20081002.pdf

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/ssgn-tactical-trident-subs-special-forces-and-super-strike-01764/

8 Vanguard successors coupled with the 7 Astute attack subs (SSN's) very belatedly being built/undergoing sea trials for the Royal Navy would provide the
country with force-projection capabilities that would legitimately give serious pause to known and potential state and non-state aggressors in the future and would at least partially make up for the egregious damages done to the RN's surface combatant strength and capabilities over the last 12-years...

Damages that won't in the least be rectified by the 6 Type-45 Destroyers and 2 aircraft carriers that Labour has begrudgingly committed highly inadaquate funding for the construction of: these urgently needed warships are being built without basic, industry-standard weapons, sensors, communications, ship self-defence and damage control systems- due to Labour govt design-interference and in order to save money...


Roderick V. Louis,
Vancouver, BC, Canada
ceo@patientempowermentsociety.com
Roderick V. Louis - Vancouver, BC, Canada

Strategies for maintaining the UK's submarine- & other military vessel types & related technologies- innovation, design & construction capabilities several decades into the future should prominently factor into decisions made regarding the Trident renewal/Vanguard submarine successor issues...

Similarly, decision-making processes regarding Trident renewal/Vanguard successor design issues should be considering the UK's global 'industrial, technological and military competence and capabilities' profiles and how whatever decisions are made will effect these profiles...

Any country that builds less than half the operationally-required numbers of integral to national defence classes of military vessels- during a 20 year span- can expect to be viewed by other countries as weak and ambitionless- possessing misguided and incompetent leadership, and not worthy of retaining its decades-old postions on the world's most powerful and influential political, legal, trade, financial and military bodies...

Does the UK want to remain a valued and respected world leader...


__________________
Roderick V. Louis,
Vancouver, BC, Canada,


Roderick V. Louis - Vancouver, BC, Canada

Some excellent points here, but still the first hurdle is politics. Maybe we don't need the Trident replacement, but we do need a complete review, devoid of any political interferance to address the current situation and also the possible scenarios covered very well in this and other posts.

My thoughts would tend to a much larger fleet of Astutes, including an Astute II which would be an extended vessel with extra weapon space. Add to this, the complete upgrade to the surface fleet to make every vessel as good as it can be made. No short cuts and underequipping of vessels to save money. ( After all, the money already spent is wasted if a £1m missile takes it out. )

As for who provides our actual warheads is not really an issue. We have had a long standing partnership with America on so many things, that it would be ineffectual to decide to go our own way now.

I just want to see our forces properly equipped with all the weapon systems that are needed to cover all likely scenarios. It's up to them to come up with a realistic proposal and then the government should write the cheques. It's also about time that the services really did work together to fight the one enduring enemy that's here today. Politics. If they can't win this war, they'll not be equippet to fight any others.

We always seem to have one hand tied behind our backs, especially with the nuclear issue. Just when would we ever use it ? If Argentina re-took the Falklands and used our new runways and equipment against us, then would we use it ? Even against so many other possibles. Unfortunately, governments go in for bullying and sabre rattling on a daily basis. If one did do something to force the use of a nuclear retalliation, you can bet that the vast majority of the people killed would be just ordinary civilians. The government would be long gone into hiding. It's a detterant system after all. It's use would mean a failure. If the United Nations were less of a toothless bunch, things would get better. Politics again. It's about time we found a better way than the polarised party system. In the last world war a coalition worked best. Maybe we're there again as too much in-fighting is ineffective and too costly in lives, livlihoods and money.
The Cap - Darlington

Current Vanguard class are 50% longer than Astute and have 2 metre bigger beam and draft.

To modify Astute to take Trident would be an enormous undertaking. I can't see how this would save much money especially as a Vanguard replacement would no doubt use many Astute design features and lessons learnt.
CLIVE RADLEY - Camberley

Dear Shaun,

I have taken my time to respond to you, because I wanted to research of some the points which you made in your reply to me.

You state at the outset that I am opinionated, well, forgive me for that, I take it you are not and that your opinions on this site are universally accepted, thus I take my hat off to you. Flippancy aside, all the opinions on this site are just that, and I respect yours just as much as many of the other excellent contributors to this forum.

In your response, you criticise my thinking as being "still inside the box" when I advocate change to an alternate system, yet your answer is to buy the same system again. Really now, I think it would be fair to say that I’ve made it out of the box, yet you are still firmly in there with much tape and strapping yet to be unwrapped.

You criticise me for choosing the W80/84 warhead, and thus compromising the independent aspect of our deterrent. Well, we actually don’t own the Trident missiles you preach for either, they are leased from a pooled quantity serviced from Kings Bay in Georgia, USA. Oh, I do believe that that is also part of America…… Are we both thus compromising our nuclear independence, or suggesting a similar thing ?

Yes, storing nuclear warheads on the Astute near crew sleeping areas would not be a good idea, but thinking outside of the box, they could be stored elsewhere on the vessel, not much manoeuvring required for that solution.

I have just read the full script of the START 3 treaty signed on the 8th April 2010, and which is available on the US Department of State website, and it makes no mention of submarine launched cruise missiles, let alone the removal of them, so your statement is merely a figment of your imagination.

I completely agree with you that ballistic missiles offer the best option for nuclear defence, the question is affordability. In the real world, these things have to be paid for, and whether you like it or not, the MOD needs to be more creative with the funds which it has, and make them work harder. I too would love to see defence spending rise back to 3% of GDP or beyond, but it isn’t going to happen. Lets be clear, the PSBR for the year 2009/10 in the UK will be £153bn, and the national debt will be approaching £1 trillion. Balancing the books this year would require a 20% cut in government spending.

I do not advocate change unless we get cast iron assurances that the savings will be spent elsewhere on the defence programme, savings not just from Trident, but also scrapping the A400M programme for C17’s and C130’s, and cancelling the F35B by navalising the Typhoon. The 3 simple savings above could yield as much as £30bn, that’s a hell of a lot of additional vessels for the Royal Navy, an enlarged Army and ability to project power around the globe and thus better protect our interests.
Andy B - Dartford

Andy, no offence was intended from my reply to your original email, so if there was some, my apologies.

My reference to thinking inside the box was in reference to the use of SLCM as a credible deterrent. The Trident system is the current delivery system of UK nuclear warheads. I am merely saying that either Trident (with a SLEP) or a successor ballistic missile is the obvious and best solution as a delivery system.
True the Tridents are shared with those used on the Ohio SSBNs. However the front-end is British in design and I believe manufacture. By producing the front-end this ensures there are no restrictions from using a missile system produced in the USA.

The only alternative to having a proposed SLCM on Astute Class SSN would be to insert a (vertical or angled) missile launch module between the propulsion and command areas of the submarine. This would be expensive and compromise the attack boat characteristics of speed and manoeuvrability.
The references I made with respect to the removal of SLCM WRT START3 were made after reading some other military sites which stated this as much. The fact remains the Americans are removing the nuclear SLCM's as their end-of-life is approaching, no successor is planned.
I believe some of the rationale behind maintaining the A400M project is because the alternative is an even more increased reliance on American military hardware, even though I personally think AIRBUS have screwed the project up is irrelevant. More C-17's would be nice for an improved air-bridge capability. I disagree with the cancelling of the F-35(B or hopefully the C).

The Typhoon, although getting some recent good press WRT performances against other aircraft would be a compromise in many respects to the Lightening II. Payload, range, stealth and poorly placed forward canards make for a poor substitute. Hindsight been beautiful thing, the Sea-Harrier FAC2 was a superb system, and before it's retirement, the best fighter in Europe and according to some reports enjoyed a 15-1 kill ratio over visiting F-15's. I would be happier getting the British industry involved in a super-sonic replacement, which was muted in the late 1980's and early 1990's.
Shaun - Ex-RNZN