Hammond 'jumping the gun' on Trident

HAVE YOUR SAY

29 October 2012

I really do feel sorry for Nick Clegg,well I don't really,I'm just saying that to make it seem that any opinion of his means a toss.

This is more or less how the Tory party view his place in the coalition,like some kind of glove puppet who is allowed to give an opinion every once in a while,to keep his parties MP's happy

Even the current committee looking into Trident replacement is a sop to his ego,and will be an expensive worthless exercise. The Tories will plow on regardless of poor old Nick,who's remarks in regards to flattening Moscow plainly show his lack of understanding of current and future affairs,as far as defence goes.

Lets hope in 2015,someone gets a clear majority,whoever it is.
michael - notts

29 October 2012

michael - notts

"Lets hope in 2015,someone gets a clear majority,whoever it is."

You really fancy UKIP or another dose of New/Old Labour? I hope not!

While I am an ardent supporter of CASD, I don't support the foolish notion that Trident and its direct replacement is the only option to maintain it. I applaud the review of all alternatives as long as it includes a comprehensive study of new and emerging technologies. If the results (when made public), clearly show that CASD can only be viably maintained through a replacement submarine platform then I will happily accept the £20bn+ cost of it.

To castigate an MP for questioning their reluctance to potentially waste OUR money which may be more efficiently used within the defence budget seems rather short-sighted.

It's a bit like saying "I'd like to spend £450k on a supercar capable of 200mph instead of maybe spending £150k on a different car that is 'only' capable of 186"! The difference in capability is marginal, but the difference in cost could be huge (given that you would be unlikely to use/need that increased capability).
AW Employee - Yeovil

29 October 2012

AW Employee,
Quite frankly I don't fancy any political party,in my opinion for what it's worth,it is just a matter of choosing one of the lesser evils.

Continuous at sea deterent means what it says,so whilst you are an ardent supporter of the same,please tell me what sort of platform other than a submarine can carry out this task. Or are you mistakenly using this acronym to encompass other alternatives.

As for you happily accepting the £20bn cost,you and the rest of the taxpayers of the UK have already accepted more than £30bn for the Eurofighter Typhoon,without as much as a whimper. Perhaps you yourself being in the aerospace industry has some bearing on your attitude.

A lot of what I said regarding Clegg was tongue in cheek,I thought that was obvious. I do however question his leadership skills,and I definately question his party's stance of defence.
michael - notts

30 October 2012

A decision is what you do before you act. Spending so much money is acting. Ergo the decision has been taken.

This notion of a "final decision" is a piece of sophistry using which they could spend all £20 billion, build and crew the boats - before taking the "final decision" over whether or not to actually sail one.

Its the same final decision that Blair used when he sent troop to the borders of Iraq before asking Parliament's last minute approval. Its confirming a decision, not taking one.

One of the arguments in 2016 will be.... look how much money has already been spent...
Jeremy - Newcastle

30 October 2012

michael - notts

I happen to think we have the 'lesser evil' in Govt now, as without the Lib Dems keeping a lid on Osborne & Cameron's ambitions, I think the austerity cuts would have been far worse. That does not mean I am a Lib Dem supporter cos I'm not! I just don't happen to like any of the alternatives currently on offer. I don't believe any current MP understands defence as the vast majority have never served in the forces or had to go into combat with woefully inadequate equipment! I would dearly love to see all Ministers and potential Ministers attached to the Armed Forces for 3-6 months so they gain first-hand experience of the conditions our troops have to endure. It will never happen, but I can dream.

As for CASD, yes it does have to be submarine mounted (can't see us going back to air-dropped any time soon), but what I meant was it doesn't have to be a single purpose vessel. I'd like it to be 'Enhanced-Astute' if you like, based upon a stretched hull that can take a Trident module of 4-6 tubes. This will give it a decent CASD capability but keep development costs down and allow a swing-role when not required for deterrent patrol. It will also circumvent the arguement of a SLAM-based deterrent being easily defeatable or mis-interpreted as a pre-emptive strike.

I, like many others were not happy at the cost of Typhoon, but accepted it as the price to pay for retaining the capability to design & build modern combat aircraft. The alternative was buying US, French or Russian, none of which returns any money to UK through taxation or technology transfer.

I would also like to see the MARS ships being built here instead of in S. Korea and I was dumbfounded at the rapid scrapping of MPA airframes - why not store them until we could afford to complete them? Wouldn't cost the taxpayer much and would be infinitely cheaper than buying new/other airframes later on.

I could go on, but I would be in serious danger of apoplexy at the state of this country's defences and despair at the thought of what will be left after 2015!
AW Employee - Yeovil

30 October 2012

michael - notts / AW Employee,

Of course you are both assuming no cost overruns when you state £20bn. However a submarine launched ballistic system is the only feasible deterrent.

On the question of CASD if the deterrent was funded directly by the treasury as a strategic force then as it was for decades then I wouldn't care if we maintained it but when it is a question of funding from core defence budget we risk becoming 'Belgium with nukes'. I would far rather we saved our usable conventional forces than sacrificed them on the alter of CASD. We can assess the risk and determine if it is necessary after all we would not advertise if an SSBN is on patrol!
Graham - High Wycombe

30 October 2012

Quite frankly you all (And I) don`t really know. Submarine technology has advanced, but so has detection.
SSBN require a significant (Very Significant) protective layer of defence to make them effective. Even the merest hint of presence or knowledge of where they are will negate any deterrent effect. We do not know if they are safe. The removal of Nimrod, obvious decline in Surface Ship numbers and lack of SSN all means our deterrent is now much more likely to be vulnerable.
Thus cutting back on Conventional weaponry will only aggravate the situation further.
Then the champions of Trident and reduced spend elsewhere will have to answer why no one responded when asked to launch, because the Boat had been tagged coming out of Faslane.
And to compund the issue we only have 1 Boat..... So it is debatable how viable the deterrent actually is. No, the USA has a deterrent with no single point of failure, we have a polictical gesture, which does not warrant the decimation of UK conventional forces to maintain.
Degradable - UK

30 October 2012

AW Employee,
Leaving aside the political aspect of the discussion,I agree with a lot of what your say,although the remarks re Typhoon could just as easily apply to the SSBN,we have to accept the cost,whether it be a Vanguard successor or an updated Astute. Of course,firstly for defence but also to keep the skills base needed to build these vastly complex vessels. Hopefully we have learned from what happened the last time we lost these skills and had to call in the Electric Boat Company to get us out of the mess we were in.

As for MARS,I am not to worried about Korea building these vessels,at least we will get them on time and without cost overuns as would no doubt have happened if they had been built in the UK. Also remember that no British firm put in a bid to build them.

Let's see what happens when requests for bids are put out for the RFA solid support ships,that should be next in line to build.By that time BAE should have the capacity to take them on,but will they be able to compete with the likes of Korea.

Many thousands of words have been written on the MRA4 debacle,both for and against its scrapping.The main issue is the gap we now have in MPA assets,in the end we will end up buying off the shelf for sure. P8 I hope,but could be 'SeaHerc'.

Storing MRA4 until the finance became available,would only have delayed the inevetable,and the MPA gap would still have been there.
michael - notts

30 October 2012

michael - notts

You seem to be so negative about the UK defence industry's capabilities, and these days that more or less means BAE.

Korea has for years backed its own industry where as BAE have been left alone to sink or swim and had to deal with a incompetent and belligerent MOD procurement executive.

Yes, if BAE had been allowed to carry on with MR4 there would have been more problems, but nothing insurmountable. As it is now, the UK no longer has the option of design/build/modify for large military aircraft, and it is going the same way for combat aircraft too (because of the lunacy of the UK purchase of the F35).

The MOD get the UK defence industry they deserve. Where the UK MOD have a long term (i.e. 30 year) relationship with the supplier we get things like the Hawk, Buccaneer, EJ200(aka XG40) and ECR90/Captor radar. MR4, MARS etc are MOD initiated problems - not BAE's.
Martin Bayliss - Stroud

30 October 2012

Martin Bayliss - Stroud

The reason South Korea got the MARS contract is because they submitted a far better offer than any British yard, I was talking to an RFA Officer a few weeks a go when I delivered to RFA Wave Knight, all four tankers will be delivered to spec, 16 weeks apart, they have even told the Navy/RFA what hour of the day the ships will be ready for handover.

The simple fact is, the South Korean yards appear to be far more modern than current UK dockyards, what we need in this country is for BAE and Babcocks and all of the other shipyards is to invest in modern facilities which would allow us to compete with foreign shipyards.
Rob - Telford

30 October 2012

Well Clegg will lose his seat in 2015. Sheffield has a university & they do not take kindly to him breaking his promise on tuition fees. Then there is the dither over helping Sheffield Forgemasters. He is a disaster for his constituents & they know it.
John Hartley - Woking/Surrey/UK

31 October 2012

Rob - Telford,
Are you sure this officer has the delivery dates correct. 16 weeks apart seems an extraordinary short space of time.

Apart from which,they then need to be taken to the UK and fitted out with the necessary military equipment,I cannot see that we would have the capacity to fit out all these four vessels at the same time,then the RFA have to train and man the crews,which I would assume would be on a one at a time new for old basis.

Perhaps using you contacts you could try and make more enquiries.
michael - notts

31 October 2012

michael - notts

That was my sentiment exactly, he assured me that the Korean Shipyards have that kind of capacity, my reply was can we train people quickly enough to receive them that quickly, as well as iron out any problems with the vessels . . .
Rob - Telford

31 October 2012

michael - notts

I am going on Lyme Bay this month, I might ask one of those guys, they may know, if not I'll wait until I go on Wave Ruler in the new year.
Rob - Telford

31 October 2012

Rob-Telford,
Thanks for that Rob.
Corner one of them in the officers bar and ply him generously with drink,that might work.

Can I nosey,can you give us a hint as to what line of work you do.
michael - notts

31 October 2012

michael - notts

I'm more excited about getting on Astute next year, I have already had a guided tour of a T-Boat.

I have to supervise the delivery of spares equipment from my company to the Royal Navy, so I get to go aboard a lot of vessels, I have my favourites, (a lot depends on whether I get a wet at stand easy), Talent, Bulwark, Kent, Cardigan Bay, all outstandin in that field.
Rob - Telford

01 November 2012

Rob - Telford,
Thanks for that Rob,you are in a nice position to be able to get on all those vessels.

Just going back to the delivery dates of the MARS Tankers. I was reading an article on the propulsion systems for these vessels,and the following extract seems make what you were told incorrect.

'GE will begin delivering its systems for the first MARS tanker in the fourth quarter of 2014 and is scheduled to finish supplying equipment for the fourth MARS tanker by the second quarter of 2016. '

So it would appear to be a 2/3 year spread for all four vessels to be completed.
michael - notts

01 November 2012

michael - notts

You know what sailors are like for their stories (even RFA). There nearly as bad as soldiers . . .

I'll ask when I'm on Lyme Bay later this month see if they know anything. The Officer aboard Wave Knight was really quite impressed, unless I misunderstood him and he was saying the Korean yards offered the vessels every 16 weeks . . .
Rob - Telford