- Defence policy
- Equipment and support
- Modernising defence
- Aviation
- Marine
- Land vehicles
- Security
- HR and training
- Defence estates (DIO)
News updates
Twitter updates
Facebook
Email
Print
Trident replacement orders under way
18 February 2011
Several items will be ordered before the 2016 Main Gate decision is made and the US government has already ordered some parts from American suppliers on behalf of the UK, it was revealed.
In a series of questions in the Commons, Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) vice-chair Jeremy Corbyn MP asked whether the government would be purchasing any components of the replacement submarine before the Main Gate decision.
Defence Secretary Liam Fox said: "The specialist high strength steel needed for the hull structure for the first boat is included as a long-lead item in the Initial Gate Business Case for the programme.
"This is due to the length of time needed for the mill run, that means that the order must be placed prior to Main Gate in order not to put at risk the in-service date."
In a separate answer it was revealed that one $3m order for "materials related to propulsion" was placed by the US government on behalf of the UK after the Trident Value for Money review in November 2010.
Armed Forces Minister Nick Harvey said: "Contracts will be placed at the appropriate times throughout the assessment phase for those long-lead items that are included in initial gate to ensure we meet the in-service date of the Trident replacement."
Afterwards Labour MP Corbyn said that the items could be worth over £1bn and that ordering them was a "flagrant abuse of Parliament".
"This is not some small project that needs a couple of parts ahead of time, but the biggest of all defence items where every decision has global implications. When MPs last voted on this, Tony Blair made it clear he was seeking 'parliamentary approval for the concept and design phase'- not the construction of new submarines. The orders Liam Fox plans to take are therefore illegitimate, without parliamentary authority and must be halted."
Former Lib-Dem leader Sir Menzies Campbell, who had hailed the delaying of the Main Gate decision as a victory for the Lib Dems in the coalition, said: "Although there is a cost involved in ordering the steel, this is by no means a green flag for Trident."
Kate Hudson, General Secretary of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, said "Ordering the steel to build the submarine is what any ordinary person would think of as deciding to build the submarine. This decision is a real slap in the face for the Lib Dems and a betrayal of the commitments made to them by the Prime Minister. Nick Clegg was told the decision was delayed until 2016 - after the end of the coalition agreement, but it seems either he was sold a con, or Liam Fox is jumping the gun without the agreement of one half of the government."
HAVE YOUR SAY
18 February 2011
It's a shame they can't order badly needed helicopters as quick.
T G - N Aycliffe Co Durham
18 February 2011
I don't know what there whinging about, if they don't order Trident replacement, we can still use the steel and "materials related to propulsion" to build more SSN's for the fleet . . . .
So the money won't be wasted!!!
Rob - Telford
18 February 2011
I personally wish Hudson/Corbyn would sod off with their wishy-washy ways and pacifist attitudes.
We need a credible nuclear deterrent. I've mentioned on previous posts many times why we do. I don't think it's a question of the public being asked if they want our country to spend the money on them; that is a question which our elected representatives can answer for us, as most of the public are happily bemused about anything to do with defence...
Laskovar - UK
18 February 2011
Come on folks it's the only time these lunatic fringe MP's and their cohorts get a chance for a grab at the limelight.
CND has in the decades it has been campaigning achieved absolutely nothing,on the other hand the nuclear deterent has for the last fifty years has done what it says on the tin.
Idiots like CND were actively encouraged by the USSR and used by them as a propaganda tool in the cold war,at least they kept the MOD police in work monitoring the 'peace camps',and the less said about them the better.
The one thing critics of procurement in the UK go on about is the delays in projects,so if we need to order these long lead items without consulting these minor politicians so be it.
Let them have their fifteen minutes of fame then ignore them,which is exactly what the powers that be will do.
Whilst they are shouting and demonstrating the work will carry on in spite of their self inflated ego's
michael - notts
18 February 2011
CND is a cushy little number. Look at "Baroness" Ashton.
How many other ex CND types have got well paid, public sector non jobs?
Not just in the UK, but been placed in the EU, UN?
John Hartley - Woking/Surrey/UK
19 February 2011
I agree with all the contributors comments so far,these limp wristed Liberals would leave the nation defenceless against the threats the many already know we are up against.They should be mindeful that they came third and are lucky to have any voice at all in their pink and fluffy world.It makes economic sense as others have said to order long lead items way in advance.I am worried enough by the way the coalition and the previous government almost seemed to treat defence as an annoying necessity that must be cut to the bone.
Howard - Farnborough,Hants.
19 February 2011
its about time thay stop messing about and get them ordered now
peter harris - walney
19 February 2011
If it was up to the CND we'd all be living under the hammer and sickle years ago.
Fifth columnists to the last one, most if who are probably supporting Al Qaeda under the ironic banner of United Against Fascism
Albert Yome - Gibraltar
20 February 2011
If the UK is to maintain an independent nuclear deterrent then it goes without saying that the Vanguard SSBN will need replacing.
Therefore I have no problem with long lead items being ordered, what I am more interested in is making sure the deterrent is funded by a supplementary budget as it has always been and not funded from the core defence budget as this will definitely allow the treasury to further cut back conventional spending. I also believe delaying the main gate decision was wise as it will allow other projects to go ahead that otherwise could have been at risk if Vanguard replacement spend peaks to early.
Graham - High Wycombe
21 February 2011
The United States had around 30,000 nuclear weapons when it was defeated in Vietnam. The Soviet Union was defeated in Afghanistan despite having thousands of nuclear weapons.
Earlier contributors to this website seem to be totally ignorant of these basic facts.
Trident is a status symbol and has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with defence. The missiles themselves are actually hired from the United States. Thus, in no real sense is it independent either.
A.B - Shropshire
21 February 2011
AB
It is to the credit of the US & the USSR that they chose NOT to use their nuclear weapons.
If religious extremists who believe in martyrdom & the end of the world, get hold of them, will they hold back?
Sadly I doubt it.
I agree the UK deterrent neads to be more independent. I would want the missiles licence built in the UK.
John Hartley
22 February 2011
What is lost on the fact that previously there have been conflicts where nuclear powers have been opponents of minor belligerents; is that the use of nuclear weapons was not required to change the strategic or even tactical picture.
Though other nuclear countries supported the minor militaries (the good old east vs. west), this was more of idealistic support measure; with the view that since each could destroy the other in a MAD scenario; then as a matter of consequence conventional conflict would always ensue; this was the fore bearer to modern asymmetric warfare as we know post 2001.
To ensure such a stalemate, or in the event of a failure to keep things conventional, then it is absolutely necessary that the UK refresh it's nuclear arsenal and the delivery systems (in this case ballistic missiles and submarines to launch them); so that options exist to strike back.
With regard to the Trident II system, yes the missile are shared from a common supply with the US. However the pointy blowy up end is purely British in design (based on US specs for obviously reasons - it needs to fit in!), manufacture, and deployment (targets and control of such decisions).
I can see that perhaps in the future, the UK may opt to build some modified Astute Class Hunter Killers with a Common Missile System (CMS) of at least four cells, to half a dozen. This is because the government / MoD will procrastinate with the Vanguard replacement and follow on Astute class dedicated Hunter Killers and hedge their bets in the form of a hybrid which could be fitted with ballistic missiles, or in conventional missions, cruise missiles similar to the Ohio conversions to SSGN's.
It is prudent to order the materials which will be required for advanced submarine production in the future, whether than be SSBN, or SSN in form...
Shaun - Ex-RNZN
22 February 2011
A.B - Shropshire,
Your argument is illogical,so before you accuse other posters of being ignorant of the facts do your homework.
Both Vietnam and Afghanistan were what is considered localised conflicts in the large scale of things and the use of nuclear weapons would have been unthinkable.
The very fact that both the USA and the USSR had these 'status symbols' in their possession is what kept the world from going to war for over 60yrs.
I was at sea on a warship during the Cuban missile crisis during which we came the closest to nuclear conflict than any other time during the cold war.
If it hadn't been for the fact that even the USSR realised that if nuclear weapons were used then both sides would be assured of mutual destruction.
Trident is everything about defence,and whether or not the actuall missiles are American or not they are under UK control.
The US does not hold the codes to launch them the UK does.
michael - notts
22 February 2011
John Hartley:
(1)"It is to the credit of the US & the USSR that they chose NOT to use their nuclear weapons"
It is good that they were not used but I'm not sure that it is the act of generosity that you make it out to be. A more plausible explanation is that they could not find any advantage in using them. That is a very different matter as I am sure that you can appreciate.
(2)"If religious extremists who believe in martyrdom & the end of the world, get hold of them, will they hold back?
Sadly I doubt it."
On that basis, if they believe in martyrdom, then they would not be deterred by us having nuclear weapons either.
A.B. - Shropshire
22 February 2011
AB
Religious Extremists would not worry about our retaliation. The people around them would though. Pretty good chance saner types would rise up & step in.
America & Russia were both very careful that a local war did not escalate into Armageddon. MAD worked, as both sides knew the rules.
No thanks to the "useful fools" in the West who repeated the KGBs propaganda.
John Hartley - Woking/Surrey/UK
25 February 2011
True nuclear weapons were created for state-on-state conflicts. So if a non-state aggressor was to use a nuclear device, it would be difficult decision to warrant a 2nd strike (with nuclear weapons), unless the country harbouring them wasn't friendly...but that is another issue again.
Assuming no 2nd strike, conventional weapon systems would be employed, most likely cruise missile and SF attacks on extremist bases.
Both of these are supportable from Astute Class Hunter Killers, so if anything the government should build more of these proven military assets rather than just the seven on order or planned at present.
Shaun - Ex-RNZN