PWR3 Reactor chosen for Trident

HAVE YOUR SAY

18 May 2011

More money down the drain on a pointless weapons system that does nothing to defend this country.
Paulo - Windsor

18 May 2011

A few days ago the Ministry of Defence was saying that it was so short of cash that it had been forced to review spending commitments for next year. New Trident nuclear weapons are something we simply can't afford when the everyday equipment needed by troops on the ground is in short supply.
Wharnecliffe - Spurgeon

18 May 2011

Paulo - Windsor

What pointless weapon system, I take it from your tone that you think that Britain having a Nuclear Deterrent is a waste of time and money? Just take off your rose tinted specs and have a look at the real world for a moment.

I beg do differ there a lot of countries out there (some of them don't like us very much), who have or are actively trying to develop Nuclear weapons. These people would have no hesitation in using them against us if they thought they could get away without retaliation.
Rob - Telford

18 May 2011

Paulo - Windsor
Rob-Telford has just about said it all,and I completely agree with him.
The western powers nuclear deterent is all that stopped the cold war from getting hot,and with rogue states on the rise anything could happen.

Wharnecliffe-Spurgeon,
This money will be spent over the next twenty years,not tomorrow. Your post is short sighted in the extreme and these weapons are to paraphrase you 'simply something we can't afford,to be without'
michael - notts

18 May 2011

Well done Paulo and Wharnecliffe - your comments seem to have upset the scared little men who are too frightened to step outside their own front door in case the sky falls on their heads.

The reality is that most countries of the world - inluding ones in far more dangerous places than the UK - feel quite secure without nuclear weapons. The Taliban have had no problem in running rings around NATO without nuclear weapons.

Opinion polls show that most people in this country don't want nuclear weapons and think they are a waste of money. Rob and Michael - your views are those of a small and unrepresentative minority.
Michael Coles - Norwich

18 May 2011

Keeping nuclear power technology up to date, is handy for civilian power generation too.
If the PWR 3 lives up to the hype, it could be used on future large RN surface ships, such as carriers & tankers.
John Hartley - Woking/Surrey/UK

18 May 2011

Paulo-Windsor and Wharncliffe-Spurgeon

I agree totally with Rob and Michael.I presume you do not prescribe to the idea of an insurance policy.If you two drive,lets hope you never get hit.
Howard - Farnborough,UK

18 May 2011

So no cracks in the new structures then. That's good to know. I'm looking forward to the worsening cracks in the coalition though.

And yes, we do need these boats. We need assurance and insurance in these ever changing times. No one knows what will happen tomorrow, never mind by 2028. Hopefully, these boats will have a more flexible armament.
Ian R - Durham

18 May 2011

Obviously if the UK government is earmarking funds for the future deterrent then it must be high UK defence interest, perhaps Paulo and Wharnecliffe should research the world dynamics post WWII up to now (not 1990!).

It annoys me that one of the simplest military policies (i.e. You nuke me, we nuke you) is so hard for some people to understand, and comprehend how it kept them, them parents families etc safe for the last 60 odd years…even if they don't agree with the destruction these weapons can cause, it's defensive purpose and strike purposes are as valid as when they first entered service. Fact.

Tell me again how many new operators of nuclear weapons there are post 2000???
Shaun - Ex-RNZN

19 May 2011

Indeed, be interesting to see how these reactors turn out.

Hopefully the nod to the Lib Dems is just that. SSBN's can't be hit at all easily before they strike. You can't determine where they strike from AND they are not subject to over flight, basing or other political rules.

We need SSBN's to ensure that we can retaliate against any one who would strike us.

The list is becoming large and nuclear weapons are becoming ever more common.

It's sad to see how the public treats the armed forces.

"We don't need them. Outdated. Waste of money." Are all things I hear every day.

Yet I can't help but think that for an outdated concept they have done a good job protecting and securing the saftey of our nation post war, post 1980's and even post 2000's... Last time I looked 10 or even 30 years was not enough time to become outdated in the historical scheme of things... IN fact wasn't it about 20 years between the war to end all wars and Halocaust.

Name a year in history where the planet has had peace and I'll eat my hat. Bet anyone a significant amount of money I could find some war going on at any month in any year of humanities history.
Anthony - Bristol, United Kingdom

19 May 2011

All the discredited old myths coming out in this debate, I see:

1) The world is such a dangerous place and everyone hates the UK.

- so let's develop a foreign policy based on co-operation, like China has done.

2) Anything could happen in the future and we need insurance.

- so let's spend the little money we have on addressing the most likely threats, not the least likely ones. How come none of the 'tier one' threats in the National Security Strategy are the type of threat that could be addressed by nuclear weapons.

3) We need nuclear subs to spin off into civil power generation

- the different types of reactors are designed for different purposes, and the civil power operators already have reactor designs they are planning to build.

4) 'You nuke me and I'll nuke you'

- Are you seriously suggesting that international diplomacy is carried out at the level of understanding of a three year old?

.. and the best one of all:

5) Nuclear weapons have kept the world safe for 60 years.

- so prove it, then. There have been plenty of wars in the last 60 years, including between nuclear armed states. A large range of factors, including increased trade dependence and memories of WW2, have kept the peace in Europe over that period.

You lot need to look at the facts rather than wallow around in your own fears and prejudices.
Martin Jones - Bicester

19 May 2011

I don't want to type for two hours educating people with no understanding of military matters (including nuclear politics ...yawns) including history since WWII.

Unfortunately, there is no guarantee that such information would sink in past the first neuron pathway...

Perhaps these people could go outside and hug a tree, sign a petition or whatever; while the grown ups talk peer to peer.
Shaun - Ex-RNZN

19 May 2011

To quote;

"1) The world is such a dangerous place and everyone hates the UK.

- so let's develop a foreign policy based on co-operation, like China has done."

China is currently expanding it's SSBN fleet by another 3-6 boats. It also has several older boats in service.
China is also in possession of a number of land based and/or air launched nuclear missiles.

India is building SSBN's as well.

Then we need to consider the follow countries have nuclear weapons;
United States, Russia, United
Kingdom, France, China, India, Israel, Pakistan, North Korea,
South Africa (former)

Iran is developing nuclear weapons I believe? As are other countries.

Please also NOTE that almost every single big player in the terms of the world is up there... names like INDIA or CHINA... these so called "Peaceful" countries have very large sticks to hit people who try to hit them.


Next point
"2) Anything could happen in the future and we need insurance.

- so let's spend the little money we have on addressing the most likely threats, not the least likely ones. How come none of the 'tier one' threats in the National Security Strategy are the type of threat that could be addressed by nuclear weapons."

Except that last time I check nuclear deterence was a tier 1 secruity requirement laid out by the government, the SDSR and the forces experts.

Next point;
"4) 'You nuke me and I'll nuke you'

- Are you seriously suggesting that international diplomacy is carried out at the level of understanding of a three year old?"

Not at all, it's obviously more complex than that but thing like the Cold War, Arms races, Tensions between boarders. This threat stops the really big world wars from happening.

"

5) Nuclear weapons have kept the world safe for 60 years.

- so prove it, then. There have been plenty of wars in the last 60 years, including between nuclear armed states. A large range of factors, including increased trade dependence and memories of WW2, have kept the peace in Europe over that period."

Indeed you are correct. However the wars between armed states haven't gone nuclear because of what happens IF they went nuclear. In short they STOP those states from using that said weapon. I will come back to this point presently.

Another point, while trade agreements, alliances, the UN and NATO all do good things at the end of the day the reason one country or one human being won't take something from you is because it has consequences. You don't rob or bully people because you are taught it is wrong. You get punished. As punishements become less severe and you are less able to defend yourself people will take advantage of you more.
THUS a nuclear ability is a key point in your ability to defend yourselves and your allies. Something that allows your country to prosper as a world player.

FINALLY;

If NO-ONE had nuclear weapons it would be fine. But as the list above proves, plenty of countries do. More are joining them. These countries are from Communist, Socialist, Capatilist and all sorts of political, religious and sociological background. They will NOT all disarm. Even if they did someone could quietly recreate a nuclear capability and then you'd be in trouble.

Possessing the deterent, showing the deterent allows it to function.

"You lot need to look at the facts rather than wallow around in your own fears and prejudices.
Martin Jones - Bicester"

I am looking at facts, facts like lack of resources, lack of world unity, lack of understanding, lack of peace and generally a lack of stability in the human race. It means that defence is needed. I'd sadly bet on it being needed for the rest of humanities existance. Unfortunate but proven throughout history by FACT.

Perhaps you are the one who is understandable scared and prejuidiced. I'd rather that fear and prejuidice doesn't cost me the people I know their lives one day because we all have to turn round and go..."Opps we got rid of our nuclear ability... looks like we'll be doing exactly what country X says we will because we can't reply like for like."
Anthony - Bristol, United Kingdom

19 May 2011

Rob-Telford,
We seem to have woken up the anti nuke lobby,the bearded pinko's who's sole input into the defence of our country is to wave placards,shout obscenities and riot.

Michael Coles-Norwich,
If I am one of the people you class as scared little men frightened to step outside their doors,I at least have served my country for 25yrs in the armed forces.

I doubt very much whether you and the rest of the anti nuke/cnd rabble have done more than attend rallies of the like minded.

I am sure I would rather listen to people like Sir Mark Stanhope and his ilk,rather than the fanatics and so called anarchists (actually out of work yobs and professional trouble makers) that we see cluttering our streets.
michael - notts

19 May 2011

I am all for nuclear weapons & nuclear power, for all of the reasons put so well by Anthony above. not to mention the jobs that the industry provides directly, and indirectly such as support/services even the high street.

Scientific advancements off the back of the nuclear industry have helped shape our modern world in so many ways & will continue to do so.

Anti-nuclear types make me sick...I was onced canvassed by a greenpeace chugger, who was totally thrown when I proclaimed that I was a suporter of anything nuclear, especially weapons.

You can't power this country only with renewables & you can't defend it without some serious clout in the background...
Laskovar - UK

19 May 2011

I accept that we live in troubling times and that ever more unstable regimes are on the verge of obtaining nuclear weapon technology. But we must ask the question 'if a rogue organisation (such as the Taliban or Al-Queda) were to detonate a nuclear device would we as a Nation respond with a nuclear device of our own? I think we all know the answer would be 'No'. Even if N Korea, Iran or even Libya were to use one, I do not see how we could justify its use to the Global community given the likely proliferation it would cause.

I think far better deterent & force projection could be made from the projected £25b cost with 2 more QE carriers with F/A-18 & Prowler aircraft, a mix of F45 & F46 destroyers and frigates; E-3D AWACS, a much enhanced C-17 fleet to transport troops and equipment rapidly and the Army get its long awaited FRES and a decent personal weapon! But I'm only a taxpayer, who's going to listen to me (I also disagreed with the need for the original Trident in favour of upgrading Polaris/Chevaline as it was significantly cheaper - new boomers & upgraded ICBM v new boomers & new ICBM).
AW Employee - Yeovil

19 May 2011

Michael Coles - Norwich

As a frightened little man (who served his country for 24 years in the Army) I'm afraid I have to disagree with you, really go back to your little paradise where all people do is throw flowers at each other.

Iran has vowed to wipe Israel off the face of the planet, In my opinion the only thing that would stop them doing that (once they have developed their own Nuclear weapons), is the threat that Israel would retaliate with its own stockpile of Nuclear weapons(estimated at 200 warheads), from behind their Arrow Missile shield. But I'm sure that you think that is just rhetoric and Iran wouldn't do that really .. . . Personally if I was Israel I wouldn't take the chance.

michael - notts

Again absolutely right, you just have to love the lefties and their naieve and immature view of the world, nobody will ever Nuke anyone, do they really think that without nuclear weapons that the old USSR would never have chanced its arm with the West during the Cold War, we will never know will we?

Michael Coles - Norwich

Back to you, which opinion poll's by the way?
Rob - Telford

19 May 2011

AW Empoyee,
When you suggest the UK would not respond to a nuclear attack,are you talking of an attack on the UK itself?

If so then I would heartily disagree and in any case your alternative option to Trident replacement would be pretty useless.

Where would your four CVF's operate from when Portsmouth is a smouldering wasteland.

By the way it's T45 and T26 not 'F' and I think you mean Growler as opposed to Prowler.

Do you honestly think that your will deter fanatical regimes such as Iran if you don't have the means to retaliate in kind, and when you have an unbalanced dictator as in North Korea it doesn't bear thinking about.

No, I'm afraid we need a Trident replacement to make these people think twice.

I do wonder where the likes of Paulo and Wharnecliffe were during the Cuban missile crisis,I was on a frigate in the Persian gulf and believe me things were tense.

When Kennedy spelled out to the USSR what would happen if they did not remove their missiles from his backyard the Soviets did not take up his offer,even they saw sense.

Believe me there was a huge sigh of relief when Soviet ships bound for Cuba carrying more missiles turned back for home.

That my little fluffy friends is what having a credible deterent does,and yes nuclear weapons have kept the peace for the last 60yrs so that CND clowns can spout their tripe.
michael - notts

19 May 2011

This will probably upset those who disagree with a Nuclear deterent but I have often wondered if we go about it the right way.

Ideally I've often wondered if 9 Astute SSGN (ICBM capable) backed up by a class of 9 Upholder SSK's.

Reasoning being the Upholder is really quite cheap but varients of it are used by Australlia and Canada if memory serves. They are still regarded as being the most advanced SSK's in the world despite being a 1990's design. Even doubling their cost back then for inflation you can still get 3 Upholders to 1 Astute.

Instead of 12 Subs (4 SSBN's and 8 SSN's) you go for 9 SSGN's all with ICBM capability but with less actual number of missiles than we currently have (thus disarming slightly). You have 9 to do major fleet duties and the deterence which should allow 1 or 2 on patrol as you also have a class of 9 SSK's to be the work horse of the peacetime deployments of the fleet (and still be a very valuable asset in wartime).


So you portray the image of encouraging the idea of disarming nuclear weapons from a global point of view.

Strategically the ICBM VL cells in the altered Astute class can hold ICBM's OR multiple TLAM's. Strategically although you have less overall missiles you have more platforms, able to deploy them from more threat axes AND cover more places at once.

Finally the submarine fleet expands as you have less expensive SSN's/SSBN's but make up for that by having a larger number of submarines overall.

Finally SSK's are valuable assets by themselves.

Often wondered if that was the way to go myself...

Completely off topic but had to get it out there.
Anthony - Bristol, United Kingdom

19 May 2011

Martin
Nuclear infrastructure.
Both are PWR.
As you say, both have differences for their relevant role.
However, the UK needs nuclear engineers & nuclear engineering companies of sufficient size to be viable.
This is where one supports the other.
Difficult to get smart youngsters to take up nuclear engineering as a career, if they only see limited employment opportunities.
John Hartley - Woking/Surrey/UK

19 May 2011

Might I suggest, whereas you both have an opinion there will always be two sides of the same coin, yes it would be nice if the Royal Navy had 6 carriers 50 type 45s and type 26, 20 .subs ect ect,
But sadly this will not protect you from nuclear weapons, and as more and more countries are getting them, history tells us that sooner or later, one country will whack, another, [believe me this may well come true one day] and this may or may not drag others into it, we must be MAD, we will be MAD to ignore the signs, but may I suggest rather that weapons that attack others, what about defensive weapons /some kind of force field, [don't laugh] but a defensive capability to defend the UK again all flying weapons, missiles, either land based or airborne or submarine firing, surely its logical aim today, for any clever [can I say that] country, to outwit your opponent and survive an attack, rather than the other way around, keep our deterrent by all means, but invest in defence, not just in name, but in actual fact, the aim being survivability, after all if the world went mad tomorrow, would we survive, , yes I am aware the Americans are trying for star wars, but this is not British defence, I would never rely on anyone else but ourselves when the chips are down,
Perhaps a cheaper alternative to the sub, if this can be done, like land based missiles, from say our bases [find one] in the pacific, that can be protected, isolated and strengthened, just an idea,
But I think a very good defence project to defend the UK. Would passably just give us the edge, to survivability, [worth thinking about, , if not already doing so] mmm
criss of herts - london

20 May 2011

michael - notts

Just to reinforce what you have already said, what the fluffy bunnies don't seem to understand is that people around the world are not like us, we are all different, that isn't a bad thing and it doesn't make us right and them wrong, we are just different.

If countries like Iran have no problem marching school children across minefields, to clear them ahead of the fighting troops, I believe that they would have no issue in attacking Israel if they thought for one second that they would be successful.

Do they think that N Korea would not have tried to reunify Korea if the South had not had the US and UN to protect them. Why have they developed Nuclear weapons and why are they trying to develop a delivery system that can accurately strike the US, its a deterrent.

As a frightened little man, I once stepped outside my house (and went to Bosnia for six months)and was at Mass grave site and witnessed first hand what people can do to each other.

On another occasion in Iraq (is that twice I went outside), there was an Iraqi girl (14 years old) put to death by her family because she had been raped. People and cultures are different and that is what makes the world such an interesting (and dangerous) place.

We need the insurance!
Rob - Telford

20 May 2011

Canada is having problems with the Victoria Class (re: Upholders), though these are mainly the Canadians fault for trying to resurrect submarines which had been dormant for almost a decade while changing the sensor and weapon fit to a US based technology at the same time.

The Australians use the Collins Class, which is based on the Kockums Västergötland design. Again, the aussies tried ozzie-up the subs, and did a pretty bad job of it (though it was their first sub build programme), and it is only in the last few years that these problems have been rectified. (Though again they now have crew and other reliability issues).

I would agree the UK needs SSK's to balance it's submarine forces in lieu of building adequate numbers of SSN's. I do wonder if building a modified Astute with a few CMM systems would allow the Astute to have a VLS cruise missile battery when not operating a SSBN. One logic I like is that with the CMM fitted, the RN could maximise the warhead count back up to 9-12 warheads, which would make the missile more lethal and thereby a better deterrent (negating ABM defence which is good for the launch and transit phases and not so good when separation has occurred).

Why is it a lot of people see the world through rose tinted glasses and cannot see the potential for future conflict? I wonder what they will say when the 19 escorts are sunk, 100 fighters shot down, while the 100 000 troops cannot be moved...
Shaun - Ex-RNZN

20 May 2011

Shaun - Ex-RNZN

We should still have a squadron of SSK's, these vessels are so flexible and can go places that the SSN's can't go. I would love to see the Astutes fitted with VL Tomahawk as per the Los Angeles class, but not instead of SSBN.

Tomahawk can be intercepted, it is slow and not neccesarily a deterrent. Trident or its replacement, even with modern ABM technology (Arrow for instance) has much better chance of getting through to target, over a much greater range with a similar sort of accuracy, the main drawback is that you do not have "Dial a yield" that you do with the W83 warhead and when you launch, you send the full payload (up to eight MIRV's, though the RN's only normally carry three + contermeasures). This could result in massive overkill, so a Nuclear tipped Tomahwak capablity would be useful as well.
Rob - Telford

20 May 2011

Rob-Telford,
I think your post will have fallen on deaf ears,these people seem to have no concept of the real world.

They walk around in their own little bubble listening to the deranged rants of their colleagues and believing it.

You have probably put them off their breakfast of muesli and nut cutlets with your descriptions of what is the reality of war.

What they can't get through their thick skulls is that no one likes war,but it is a fact of life that is not going to go away.

So that the people who have the gonads do the dirty work,and people without them stay at home and deride them.

I know who I would like to walk through mine fields !!.
michael - notts

20 May 2011

michael - notts

Of course it will have fallen on deaf ears, these people just hear what they want to hear and look at the realities of the world we live in.

They think that because they can't see a reason for Iran to want rid of Israel, that there is not a reason fro them to do it. There was no reason for Hitler to kill 6 million Jews and god knows how many other innocents, Gypies, Artists, Mental patients etc, he still did!

As you have said in the fluffy bunny world of the peace activist, everyone lies in fields of flowers, telling each other what lovely people everyone is and regard anyone who disputes that fact as frightened little men!!!

It would be nice to hear what contribution they have made to the defence of the realm wouldn't it?
Rob - Telford

21 May 2011

Rob,

Sorry for the misunderstanding. For the record I am not saying to use cruise missiles as a substitute for ballistic missiles; I have voiced my distain for this muted poor mans deterrent many times before on this website.

The force I was thinking of was 6-8 SSK's, and 14 SSN's which is a similar force structure to what the RN had prior to the UK governments 'peace dividend' cuts of the 90's. I have some doubts about the Vanguard replacements. The UK government keeps shifting the main gate decisions, which at this rate will stretch to after the 7th Astute is built. Someone in the UK government defence advisors has a brain (Bravo Zulu) which is the exact reason the 7th Astute was ordered in the first place, to allow the SSBN replacement decision to be deferred to 2016. Fast forward to maybe 2014, I can see the UK government (whoever it is) follow the US decision to mount CMM in later batches of Virginia Class SSN's in a few Astutes. Obviously using this VLS allows the salvo 7 shot cruise missile revolver to be slid in OR a ballistic missile. 4-6 CMMS would be fitted. I believe options included in later CMMS mods include a diver lock-out system (which works well on the modified Ohio SSGN's). GIven the UK government ordering these modified Astutes (which themselves have some Vanguard'ness about them); depending on the UK governments decision regarding replacing the Vanguards, this could lead to more CMMS Astutes rolled into deterrent operations; hence the total of 14 mentioned earlier in hulls..

If CMMS is fitted from say boat 6 - Anson, then the UK would have 8 SSN's with 32-48 CMMS silos for 300 odd cruise missiles and the deterrent system.

I prefer the smaller total of 4 CMMS, since this would allow the submarine to retain most of the advantages smaller hulls have; AND then have 4 Vanguard replacements built (ring fenced). It is unlikely the UK will build SSK's however, no matter how useful they are; while SSN's are unlikely to reach double figures. Pity.
Shaun - Ex-RNZN

03 June 2011

Cannot help thinking that Skybolt & Midgetman were more suited to the UK deterrent. Skybolt with todays guidance/electronics would be quite awesome.
John Hartley - Woking/Surrey/UK

06 June 2011

One of my lecturers use to work on the Skybolt project, very smart guy...

The problem with aircraft based deterrents is that you need a large number of aircraft to have the same total yield of a SSBN. Also, a failure in a submarine, it typically sinks, not much of a disaster; aircraft with weapons crash on land, much worst.

In saying that, I did like the V-Bombers the Brits made, no reason (except the lack of industry base for large aircraft with the demise of the original Nimrod). The UK has a good enough missile technology knowhow to produce a deterrent missile, problem is money, or more succulently the UK government providing it...
Shaun - Ex-RNZN

13 January 2013

All these people who are against the nuclear deterrent should think about one second why France would never ever give up its nuclear deterrence no matter what it cost they are determined to keep it. This is the country that is pretty much comparable to Britain in every sense.
Max - Zürich /Switzerland

20 March 2013

To me the rather outdated debate about the defense of the realm is defined to those in care homes.The modern debate is essentially not about the use of such technology but application of which to other types of shipping and industries to create jobs for the 8 million unemployed in the UK.The 80 billion cost of the new trident project will create some 130 billion in returns on this investment.
rob Jones - London