- 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
Ministers to announce £350m Trident contracts
21 May 2012
The contracts, which are expected to be awarded to established submarine contractors such as BAE Systems and Rolls-Royce, will cover early work on creating the successor to the Vanguard class submarines.
They will not constitute the automatic renewal of the programme, with that 'main gate' decision still due to go ahead in 2016.
Last week it was announced that the government had signed a £5bn five-year extension of its contract to manage the Atomic Weapons Establishment in Berkshire.
Conservatives in the coalition government are committed to the renewal of the UK's independent nuclear deterrent, but their Liberal Democrat coalition partners secured a review of alternatives and a delay on the main gate decision as part of the coalition agreement in 2010.
Pushing the decision back until after the next general election has meant that the coalition will not be forced to decide on a highly divisive issue during this Parliament, but the move has also pushed the in-service date of the successor submarine back until 2028.
Liberal Democrat Armed Forces Minister Nick Harvey is currently leading a Cabinet Office review of alternative options, which is due to report later this year. The report, to be presented to the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister, is to consider a wide range of options, including the dropping of the 'Moscow criterion', which insists any deterrent must be able to penetrate the air defences of the Russian capital.
The government has not committed to making the report's findings public.
Kate Hudson, General Secretary of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament said the spending was "an insult to the Lib Dems".
"The Trident Alternatives Review is a result of the Coalition agreement, allowing them to put forward alternatives to like-for-like replacement of Trident. Now when they come to report on their findings at the end of the year they will do so with design contracts already placed.
"This is either blatant double dealing by the Tories or the right hand doesn't know what the left hand's doing. Neither option inspires confidence in the government.
"What are the public to think? We are being told that there isn't enough money for public services while the government throws £350 million from taxpayers at designs for nuclear-armed submarines. With a majority of public opinion in favour of scrapping Trident, being forced to pay for it while local libraries and hospitals are axed: that's a tough pill to swallow."
HAVE YOUR SAY
21 May 2012
Amazing...
How can we commit to deterrent Submarines when we supposedly have a minister (cough) trying to consider what options we have for replacement.
Sounds like Carrier fiasco 2....
Degradable - UK
21 May 2012
So, what the Government have done is basically waste £350m as we have no idea whether successive administrations will decide to continue with the nuclear deterrent capability? On drawings? Priceless. I can't agree with Degradable more... Roll on the next general election so we can be rid of this bloody coalition of the spineless! I'm not saying Labour will be much better but there might actually be a bit of consensus in a one party Parliament!
Andy Cole - Manchester
21 May 2012
What with the QE u-turn fiasco, the skills shortage likely to result in 000s of personnel being re-hired and now this, seems like the MoD contingency budget of £8Bn is soon going to be wiped out.
£350m to start early design phase for a platform that we have no idea if it will ever be launched is a lot of wasted tax money. Our money. Someone needs to wake up and smell the real world and quick.
Complete the review of alternatives FIRST, then sign the contracts if it shows a replacement is necessary AND affordable.
AW Employee - Yeovil
21 May 2012
Andy Cole - Manchester
You think Labour would be any better? Perhaps they may increase spending here and there but where will the money come from? They too were committed to the increase in overseas aid before someone mentions that. Trust me I am not a big fan of what this government has cut from Defence, I really fail to understand some of their decisions, however they were elected on a mandate to get public spending under control.
How can we seriously think about voting in the labour party, when the annual interest on the national debt accumalated by those bufoons was bigger than the annual defence budget?. . . . . .
Unless Labour can provide a realistic comprehensive spending plan that lists where they are getting the funds to pay for everything they are promising in opposition then they can forget about it. I Trust them less than the CONDEM's and that is saying something.
Rob - Telford
21 May 2012
The report will conclude that there is no alternative to Trident in my opinion. It is only to give the Lib Dems an escape route as they said we have to look at alternatives in the election they did not say they were against Trident but against not looking at alternatives.
Graham - High Wycombe
21 May 2012
Why not a hybrid carrier of SSBM's and SSGN's. This would get more cruise missles to sea, actually make use of platforms that have never been used operationally and still have a nuclear deterent at sea for if and when we might ever be called to use it.
Also as our SSN's fire cruise missles the deterent wouldn't be compromised should they ever be used.
JC - UK
21 May 2012
These options have already been studied multiple times and the Trident-like submarine launched missile continually comes out on top. Air launched are too vulnerable to being shot down (and require a strategic bomber which the UK don't have) land based require an area the size of scotland to make them survivable enough (very hard to hide an immovable silo), submarine launched cruise missiles don't have the range, and can be shot down with relative ease. A submarine launched ICBM is the only credible deterrent.
There is an interesting (unclassified) government white paper (2005 ish) which covers this exact question, and the SSBN option is recommended, surprisingly enough!
Kit - Bristol
21 May 2012
Rob - Telford,
I believe I did make the point that Labour won't be much better in my last post. There's unfortunately no alternative. I am still of the opinion that a one party government might have some consensus instead of the petty recriminations that currently fly round the Coalition. I was making the point that it is the Coalition (and specifically the Liberal wetbacks) that are sabotaging the UK's defence capability. Here's an example: The UK had to beg India to accept £3bn aid earlier this year. That's nearly three quarters of the bill to convert the two QE Class carriers to cat and trap. If the Indians don't want it then spend it over here.
Andy Cole - Manchester
22 May 2012
Andy Cole - Manchester
The DfID minister is a Tory not a Lib Dem and it was £1.6 bn that the government begged the Indians to take in what will now be the last aid package to India. The reason is that it was in the TORY manifesto to increase aid from 0.5% to 0.7% of GDP.
So be careful when blaming the coalition when its Tory policy being implemented!
Graham - High Wycombe
22 May 2012
A massive and expensive mistake.
Trident and its replacement are not independent in any way. The US could at any time remove operational sovereignty for Trident or its replacement from the UK in an instant. So why waste billions on it?
Yes submarine or air launched cruise missiles are less reliable as a delivery system, but they are a delivery system and could be developed to be truly independent at far less cost than the UK resurrecting Black Arrow or the like. Plus if we have two carriers with proper aircraft on plus UK developed cruise missiles launched from submarines we could achieve global coverage at less cost with true independence. Plus cruise missiles can have 'conventional' warheads, and therefore are more flexible and useful.
The UK's mindless support of whatever the US wants (Iraqistan) can partly be explained by the US black mailing the UK with withdrawal of nuclear cooperation on the deterrent, which everyone knows is not independent anyway. McMillan & Heath made a massive blunder when they gave up the UK's hard earned independent nuclear strike capability (with Blair and Brown stealthily finishing it off by selling the AWA to LM and scrapping the nuclear free fall bomb capability, and not bothering to develop a UK sourced cruise missile (Storm Shadow is French)).
We should follow the French example and go it alone in whatever way we can. Once the capability is generated it is then cheaper to maintain it than creating it from scratch.
Martin Bayliss - Stroud
22 May 2012
Graham - High Wycombe
It was also a Labour pledge to increase overseas aid as well if you read their manifesto for the last election, amazing how they gloss over that as well isn't it? . . . .
Graham labours sums do not add up, where would they get the money from? I have to agree with Andy to a certain extent it is the liberals that seem to be driving a lot of the defence issues that we are talking about here
Rob - Telford