Fox: 'fourth Trident sub could be cut'

HAVE YOUR SAY

The worrying point - to me anyway - is the last statement "intervening abroad whenever necessary" - why not cease the interventionist policy?
Dave Crouch - London SE1

Why are the Vanguard successor class of submarines and the Trident ICBM replacement programmes needed to be facilitated 'in full' and not in a truncated* form??

(* as would be the situation with these programmes resulting in a '3-boat' Vanguard successor/Trident submarine fleet instead of a 4-boat fleet...)

One unarguable reason is because of the inherent, huge- AND INCREASING- vulnerabilities, and logistical difficulties of defending naval surface forces such as aircraft carriers, Destroyers, Amphibious Assault ships and the like...

Aircraft carriers, Destroyers, Amphibious Assault ships and the like are types of vessels that would be central for "the British military... to maintain its war-fighting edge... capable of intervening abroad whenever necessary"...

For the UK to be able to intervene abroad whenever necessary will automatically require the country to retain a significant level of naval SURFACE force, support and re-supply capabilities...

... capabilities that would be substantially minimized if not rendered moot very quickly if up against a moderately capable, medium-technology-equipped foe....

Substantial numbers of highly capable, technologically leading edge, multi-mission subsurface forces are needed by the UK to balance its surface forces' existing and sure to worsen-in-the-future vulnerabilities:

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/ssgn-tactical-trident-subs-special-forces-and-super-strike-01764/
----------------------------
One of China's TV stations, CCTV 7, apparently is a dedicated 'defence issues' TV channel...

CCTV 7 has a weekly defence programme- 'Defence Review Week', which, during a recent programme- almost half an hour was devoted to China's new classes of Anti-ship Ballistic Missiles (ASBMs) and showing ASBMs targeted at what are obviously U.S. aircraft carriers...

The programme is a talk-show type format, with the host interviewing what appears to be a naval weapons-systems expert and another person interviewing someone of a relatively high naval rank from the PLA Navy.

Both the programme's host and the other person devote their interviews to in-detail discussions about China's recently developed (conventionally armed, maneuverable-warhead ) 'Anti-ship Ballistic Missiles' (ASBMs) and their likelihood of success against both currently-in-service U.S.- and U.K.- aircraft carriers, as well as the new, planned 'big deck' U.K. aircraft carriers...

Most of the programme had the weapons expert and the PLA Navy officer answering questions about China's new ASBMs and showing ASBMs targeted at what are obviously U.S. aircraft carriers.

Most of the 1/2 hour programme was, apparently, lengthy discussions regarding how existing U.S. aircraft carriers might be destroyed...

Below are links to this programme that someone posted to youtube, divided up into 3 parts, each part about 7-8 minutes long...

1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ofe1SYkLJgk&feature=related

2) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-nNVvtacXU&feature=related

At 1:24 up to 3:17, showing repeated screen-shots of U.S. Nimitz class aircraft carriers and, apparently, China's recently developed (conventional, maneuverable-warhead armed) 'Anti-ship Ballistic Missiles' (ASBMs) targeted at these U.S. carriers.

Starting at 7:18 is a couple of minute cartoon showing what is plainly a U.S. aircraft carrier being attacked by one of China's ASBMs- and being sunk...

3) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LaDXzCC5aCU&NR=1

:23 up to about 1:20 shows screen shots of what are plainly projected appearances of the U.K.'s planned new 'big deck' aircraft carriers...

A good deal of unusual smiling and chuckling by both the programme host and (apparent) weapons expert guest during the :23 to 1:40 portion of this clip...

After about 1:21 shows screen shots of what are the UK's currently in-service Invincible class aircraft carriers (HMS Illustrious and Ark Royal?)
===============

On another note, this Chinese language web page: http://www.mdc.idv.tw/mdc/navy/royalnavy/type45.htm

is almost entirely about the U.K.'s Type-45 Destroyer programme... and- from using Internet translation services- seems to be very bluntly reporting the huge and highly dangerous-for-the-UK weapons systems deficiencies of Type-45s...

If readers of this page want to review the http://www.mdc.idv.tw/mdc/navy/royalnavy/type45.htm web page in English, and end up using an on-line translation service: Chinese to English- you'll likely get what appears to be a new 'translated' page with a lot of photos but no text....

There is text- and a great deal of it- but for whatever reason, the translated-text seems to be being converted to 'white colour' text- making it almost impossible to make out...

Solution:

is to simultaneously press 'ctrl' and 'a' on your keyboard; next simultaneously press 'ctrl' and 'c' on your keyboard.

Next: open Notepad and paste what you just copied into it... mostly English text will get pasted, along with some Chinese characters- without any of the page's photos (of which there are many... )...

One could paste the copied material into a word processor- rather than Notepad- but this ends up with the pictures from the web page and a lot of Chinese characters, rather than mostly English and no pictures if you paste into Notepad...
---------------------

The Vanguard successor class of submarines and the Trident replacement ICBM programmes are needed both for U.K. industry and technological capabilities reasons and for future foreign policy/deterrent strategies...
Roderick V. Louis - Vancouver, BC, Canada

Translate 'reality' from government sources = no money and we don't care about what the future may bring

The recent collision with a French SSBN, however remote, demonstrates why 4 boats are required and not 3. Redundancy when unforseen events remove an active asset.

One argument which hasn't been looked into fully is in regard to the number of ballistic missile silos plus operational boats. With a proposed 12 silos on the Successor Class, this leaves under normal operational tempos 24 missiles available for targeting any one (multiple not considered) military, political and infrastructure targets. With limits on warhead numbers (and those which are operational) this allows 96 targets to be targeted. Considering the UK, by recent admission has `250 total warheads (includes non-operational!) then in a tit-for-tat exchange past a 'first strike' / retaliation then the UK has glaring holes in ability to act decisively. It would seem some political decisions are based on the reduced number of available warheads and not strategic realities and future certainties about the re-shaping world (Global warming and its affect; Rising populations and food shortages; the rise of China; a nuclear Nth Korea, and the Northern Passage).

For all, this, the UK needs options, 4 boats, 16 silos each (20 would be better!) and the warhead capacity increased back to 12 MARV type systems. This would provide the flexibility which the military and political forces would need when the question is asked 'where are the SSBNs?'

The Chinese ASBM threat is more smoke and mirrors. Military tactics dictate that any C4I systems which would be required to provide data for such a system would be neutralised before moving a significant surface action group within range of such a system. Systems such as satellite links, radars, OTH radars, targeting ships / aircraft; and their support facilities would also have ticks next to their locations for some special attention. This reminds me of 19th century fears when the torpedo, and then the submarine appeared and all the big battle fleets were muted as large easy targets…. I forget (sic) how many leviathans were sunk solely by this wonder weapon…

If you want to keep the voters working (and paying taxes!), why is it military programmes which take years from concept to commissioning are the first to be dropped. THESE KEEP PEOPLE EMPLOYED. Why is it that politicians cannot see this? I won't touch on the surface forces; but 4 SSBN's and 12+ SSN's (not the 5 currently on order[ish]) would keep a drumbeat going maintaining stable work environments for many industries. This translate over time to cheaper platform costs, as the skills do not require regeneration if they already exist.
Shaun - Ex-RNZN

Ah element of pragmatism enters the nuclear debate, which up till now has been dominated by polemic and dogma. If the technology allows us to deploy fewer submarines, and the resources saved can be used to good effect elsewhere, we would be fools to build four submarines when we only need three.
Seanie - Havant

Just a thought. Why have 12 tubes if we only fit 3 or 4 warheads a missile. Would it be cheaper to have only 8 tubes , but give each missile 6 warheads?
Perhaps, 4 stretched Astutes with 8 missiles(Trident or M51) . Result is the same number of warheads as the early RN Polaris force.

You would need a dozen 10kt tactical warheads on Storm Shadow/ASMP/Tomahawk missiles to deter chemical or biological attack.
John Hartley - Woking/Surrey/UK

here's another idea, order four and cut the number of trident tubes to 12 or even 8 and fit 4 tomahawk tubes for 7 missiles each and make each platform dual purpose.
tim dainton - romsey

The Astute SSGN debate: The problem with stretching (for VL or angled launchers forward or abreast the main compartment) is that this added size compromises the excellent attack submarine characteristics of manoeuvrability, speed and stealth (smaller is better). Also, even though current SSNs have SLCMs, the advent of nuclear armed SLCMs would preclude some operational tasks as the deterrent role could not be compromised. Likewise, should the boats be used in a traditional SSN role, they would be a tactical disadvantages as a result in the MOVE and FIGHT priorities the captain would have. Also having some nuclear tipped missile would provide a tactical disadvantage in some tactical operations (you are not allowed to nuke a pirate village last time I checked); this then creates weapon load-out imbalances in deciding which and how many of each weapon to load prior to deployment.

The reason the Ohio SSGNs have weapon diversity is they are 170m long ex SSBN's, so space (20 VLs with 7 SLCM each plus the 'normal' torpedo tube lay-out) is not a problem. These boats fill a niche for the USN in that they provide volume firepower options (which rival a guided missile cruiser or two / CAG); bear in mind the USN also has 14 Ohio SSBNs and 50 odd attack boats.

Also, SLCM nuclear warheads are typically plutonium versus uranium. Loading these weapons into standard torpedo tubes (note RN submarines do not have VLs like LA or Virginia Class boats) would not be well received due to the major health risks (re: your average cold war Russian equivalent – do a head count on major health problems / death in those crews!).

Reducing the numbers of ballistic missiles, while increasing the warhead count would not provide the economies of scale required, and the strategic value would be diminished, as per my original post. With deterrents, remember power and numbers count…least you are on the receiving end. Smaller numbers equals wagering on survival post disaster, which you don't want to give as an option to some fanatical t**t thousands (?) of miles away.
Shaun - Ex-RNZN