Treasury asks MoD to pay for Trident

HAVE YOUR SAY

Symptomatic of the civilian bean counters, politicians and lawyers asking the Armed Forces to achieve the almost impossible with at least one arm tied behind the back!!
Norman - UK

Could it not come out of DFID's core budget instead?
Ian Skinner - Enfield

we have said it once and will keep on saying it, until some brain dead politician listens, we now give to Europe in fact more each year, than we give to defence, so who is putting who first, their is no problem with money for defence, its giving it back to them, from what we give to Europe, so, withdraw from Europe, and spend more on defence,
it really depends on your priorities, who come first, the defence of great Britain, or greedy unelected politicians in Europe,

criss of herts - london

Personally I think if recent announcements regarding closer integration with France are true. Then I think France should pay for Trident, if any of the confidential details regarding Trident should flow back to France. Then be sold to third parties unknown, we should have less to complain about afterwards. No doubt when that time came, most of our own MP's would be retired and off on their jollies.
Chris - Keighley

There is nothing more expensive than the Treasury saving money. We usually have to pay many times more to put right the short term cuts.
I agree with Ian Skinner, why is not DfID being cut. Our contributions to the EU will soon hit £10 billion a year. Our deterrent protects Europe too, so we should claim back 40% of our contributions, to put towards our military spending, we do on behalf of Europe.
John Hartley - Woking/Surrey/UK

The government are stupid if they think they can reduce the MoD budget, and then add the cost of the deterrent inside the same budget. The government need to accept that the nuclear deterrent is a separate cost center, just like politician flights and accomodation costs!

This is just another case of stealing off Paul to pay Peter..

Here's an idea, get the social welfare areas running properly so you don't have to take money from other departments to compensate!
Shaun - Ex-RNZN

THE UK'S DESIRED WORLD-PROFILE ALONG WITH ITs FORESEEN FUTURE ROLES & POTENTIAL DUTIES OUGHT TO BE PARAMOUNT IN THE UK's DEFENCE MEGA-PROJECT DECISION-MAKING!!!!

The UK's desired world-profile, roles & foreseen duties along with its required future Defence Industry and Defence-related technological capabilities (during the coming 3-4 decades) ought to underpin any and ALL discussions AND policy decisions regarding the Vanguard successor class submarine & Trident replacement programmes....

The same can be said for discussions and policy decisions regarding the future force structure & capabilities of the Royal Navy generally... IE: whether or not to commit funding for:

1a) the 'FULL' fitting out- with weapons, communications and defensive systems- of the 6 currently undergoing construction/sea trials Type-45 Destroyers- instead of continuing with the hugely dangerous, absurd previous Labour govt plans of commissioning these urgently required vessels into service as barely 20% equipped 'shells', IE: without 80% of the basic, industry-standard types of weapons, communications and defensive systems that their designers originally intended;

1b) the urgently needed 12-additional Type-45 Destroyers (12 on top of the 6 presently undergoing construction/sea trials);

2) properly designed* 'big deck' Aircraft Carriers;

* IE not continuing with the current Labour govt 'make work project for votes' programme...

This due to the planned, new 'big deck' carriers being designed- and now undergoing construction- without vital, industry-standard communications, weapons & defensive systems- and, highly dangerously without weapons guidance radars; aircraft-launch catapults and damage control systems equipment; and to make matters far worse- not nuclear powered...

Conventional, fossil-fuel powered propulsion enormously limits- if not outright prohibits- the UK's planned, new 'big deck' aircraft carriers' future upgradeability and capacity to operate next-generation anti airborne threat weapons such as 'Directed Energy Weapons' (DEWs)(DEWs are in late stages of development by several non-UK countries);

3) 10 Astute class submarines rather than the ludicrously inadequate 5 that the previous Labour govt committed funding for..

Despite times being tough- and balancing the country's annual budget deserving high importance- it could only benefit the United Kingdom's future political, economic and strategic interests if, as a result of the current Defence Review, that an unequivocally articulated 'statement' was made by the UK regarding what its intended future world roles & duties are and what UK military/crisis intervention capabilities can be counted on- by the broader world community- during the coming 3-4 decades...
===============

REACTIVATE LEND/LEASE??

Both the United States' Senate and House of Representatives Defence and budget-related committees are deliberating proposals to substantially downsize their country's navy and how budget reductions can be implemented in all of their armed forces branches...

This while the UK is struggling to find ways of financing major- but very needed- military acquisition programmes, particularly for the Royal Navy and ancillary services...

Could a productive strategy to perhaps partially meet both countries' objectives be the US 'gifting to the UK' several of its most recently built fighter aircraft & helicopter carrying naval vessels (along with their aircraft + weapons) that could be inducted into the RN in place of the UK's planned- but, due to budget constraints- enormously counterproductively lacking in capabilities- new 'big deck' aircraft carriers??

The UK could sell its 2 partially completed, impractically-designed 'big deck' aircraft carriers to reliable countries such as India, S. Korea or even Brazil; work with the buyer(s) to 'custom fit' these vessels with radars, communications, armaments, etc; and could commit future years' funding to a 're-design' of the botched-by-the-previous-Labour-govt' big deck' aircraft carrier programme...


COULD THE US LEND/LEASE TO THE UK


1) http://www.navy.mil/local/lhd8/ -

2) http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=4200&ct=4&tid=400 -

3) http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/navy/lhd-8.htm

4) http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/cvn-21/

5) http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/cvn-21/cvn-213.html

6) http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/cvn-21/cvn-214.html

7) http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/cvn-78-specs.htm
Roderick V. Louis - Vancouver, BC, Canada

US/UK SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP: CONTINUED- & DEEPENNED- COOPERATION ON DEFENCE MEGA-PROJECTS HAS SUBSTANTIAL ECONOMIC & STRATEGIC BENEFITS FOR BOTH COUNTRIES:

For nearly 1/2 a decade, the United Kingdom has been working colaboratively with the United States to jointly develop components for both countries' new classes of ballistic missile submarines- intended to replace the UK's Vanguard class and the US's Ohio class Trident submarines...

Rather than continuing only developing interchangeable submarine/missile launcher components- with each country using these components in substantially architecturally different subs- the UK and the US ought to explore potential advantages of developing 'one' nuclear ballistic missile submarine design perhaps to be jointly built in both countries...

LINKS/BACKGROUND:

1) "(Common Missile Compartment) CMC Program to Define Future (nuclear ballistic missile submarine) SSBN Launchers for UK, USA", 29_06-2010:

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/CMC-contract-to-Define-Future-SSBN-Launchers-for-UK-USA-05221/ -

"Jan 28/10: Backward compatibility. Lockheed Martin Space Systems Co. in Sunnyvale, CA received a $29.7 million sole source cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for systems engineering services, to help integrate current Trident D5 nuclear missiles into the new submarine's common missile compartment... Work is expected to be complete by... Sept 30/11..."

2) "SSGN "Tactical Trident" Subs: Special Forces and Super Strike", 13_06-2010:

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

"In the aftermath of the START-II arms control treaty, some of the USA's nuclear-powered Ohio Class SSBN nuclear missile submarines were converted to become long range conventional strike and special operations SSGN "Tactical Tridents." Four ultra-stealthy Ohio-class SSBNs had their 24 Trident II D-5 nuclear ballistic missiles removed.

"They were replaced with up to 154 Tomahawk cruise missiles, 66-102 special forces troops, special attachments for new Advanced SEAL Delivery System (ASDS) or older Seal Delivery Vehicle (SDV) "mini-subs," and a mission control center.

"In future, the SSGNs will also carry UUV underwater robotic vehicles and even UAVs for aerial operations.

"These modifications provide the USA with an impressive and impressively flexible set of conventional firepower, in a survivable and virtually undetectable platform that can remain on station for very long periods*.

"As surveillance-strike complexes make the near-shore more and more hazardous for conventional ships, and the potential dangers posed by small groups continue to rise, America's converted SSGN submarines will become more and more valuable.."

(*with the planned, new Vanguard class successor/Trident replacement submarines- why not the UK??)

3) "Northrop Grumman secures SSBN launcher contract", 18_06-2010:

http://www.janes.com/articles/Janes-Navy-International-2010/Northrop-Grumman-secures-SSBN-launcher-contract.html

4) "Future of the British Nuclear Deterrent: A Progress Report", 12_5-2010:

http://www.parliament.uk/briefingpapers/commons/lib/research/briefings/snia-05150.pdf
Roderick V. Louis - Vancouver, BC, Canada