Hammond: Trident alternatives 'not cheaper'

HAVE YOUR SAY

01 November 2012

Why on Earth was Hammond talking about Trident at an Air Power Conference? Has he got his capabilities all mixed up or has he been told the RAF operate the Boomers?

Last I heard, Coalition were not advocating replacing everything including missiles, but conducting a review into the delivery system. This is beginning to look like a put-up job and saying "we've looked at the alternatives and there's nothing viable out there". Which is b*llocks.

A stretched Astute would be perfectly capable and shed-loads cheaper than a fresh design. We even know how to build them in UK!

The real issue though is not what it costs, but where it is paid for. Coming out of MoD funding results in convential capability being radically reduced in order to pay for it, despite Hammond's ascertion that it only costs 6% over its operational life. If it is decided that UK needs a 'new' Trident submarine, it should come out of central funding, not MoD's.
AW Employee - Yeovil

01 November 2012

Daniele comment in another thread of UK not being able to sit at the top table of the P5 without Trident or its replacement requires some consideration.
An argument made by many is that it would only actually be enhanced.
NPT (Non proliferation) was an agreement on Civil Nuclear technology in return for countries not researching Nuclear Weapon Technology.
But it does not stop there, reading further into the treaty, it does indicate a willingness of the Nuclear Powers to disarm.
Therefore UK would be able to stop the Rot of nations that are looking and saying "Why are you rearming..." Perhaps we need them too will then be the next question.
That then beggars the question that is, an alternative to Trident is "No Trident replacement" which we could afford. Along with an agreement for the funds to be spent on UK conventional assets. Which if we afford Trident replacement will be completely gutted....
Degradable - UK

02 November 2012

AW Employee - Yeovil

As Defence secretary he can talk about Trident wherever he likes. Air power in any case is not the preserve of one service anyway.

I'm also confused by your comments , as I understand it the plan to replace the Vanguard fleet is based on a stretched Astute although with the newer PW3 power plant. With the first in service by 2028 I've read.
The actual Trident missiles will need replacing by 2042 I believe as the UK is signed up to a missile life extension program with the US.

It is true that operating Trident costs around 6 percent of the defence budget which should again be funded by the treasury as a strategic decision so as not to affect conventional capabilities agreed. That would be enough to save the Army regiments being disbanded for starters however can you imagine Cameron and Osborne U-turning on that one...think not.

Degradable - UK

Are you proposing UK unilateral disarmament?
Graham - High Wycombe

02 November 2012

If anyone on this thread or any other actually thinks that the major nuclear powers have any intention of disarming,they are either naive beyond belief or living in some parallel universe.
michael - notts

02 November 2012

michael - notts

Totally agree.

Graham - High Wycombe

Also find myself agreeing with your call for the funding of CASD to revert back to the treasury and not out of the defence budget, 6% of the defence budget is real money which could be well utilised elsewhere in defence, a couple more Type 45's and a decent size Lightning Force jump out straight away.
Rob - Telford

02 November 2012

Graham
Due to the lack of debate the pro-renewal lobby seem to be content with, I have to reply: YES.

I have asked a number of simplistic questions and all we get back is
A Michael answer about "Fantasy, parallel universe"
That is simply not good enough. We do live in a democracy, I accept that sometimes leadership involves decision making that is unpopular.
But my first multi-part question.
Perhaps people do not want to renew, perhaps they feel that
The threat is negligible, Obama recently stated (Not word for word) "All allies, lived under the umbrella of Nuclear detterence provided by the US and would for ever..."
I wonder then if it would be better as an ally to USA to have sufficient conventional forces to actually do task without America having to fill gaps. Force 2020 will not come to fruition if we carry on blindly down the road of renewal.
We will still keep our weapons grade material. We will then have F35, and I am sure a nuclear capable Typhoon, if required at shortish notice.
But we would also be meeting a goal of the Non Proliferation Treaty. Namely a Nuclear State giving up Nuclear Weapons.
As unpalatable and frightening as it may be to some, it may be what the people of the UK actually do want. Perhaps we do need to find out. If not then the very least people can do is explain WHY in an intelligent manner ....

BTW, in my readings on this matter I would like to correct my own error of UK Stance.
Having gone over the SDSR it does appear to imply we have given a "Non First Use declaration"
But that does also appear to be limited to countries signed up to the NPT.
Degradable - UK

02 November 2012

I'm with Graham and Michael on this one.

Cutting our Trident capability while others keep theirs seems like Chamberlain and " Peace In Our Time " all over again.

No softly softly appeasement, carry a big stick.

Funded from the Treasury, not the MoD budget, while reducing Aid, like to India, China, as examples, and the welfare state.

For me, simple fact is HMG will never willingly give up our P5 status and thus this alone demands a credible nuclear deterrent, of which sticking some cruise missiles on an Astute is laughable and has been debunked on here countless times.
Daniele Mandelli - Guildford

02 November 2012

Daniele

We would have to Give up P5, which we would not have to do as Nuclear Weapons are not linked to P5 (Indeed in 1946 only USA and Russia are near Nuclear Capable. No one can take it away as we are a P5 and could VETO..........
Additional members are always being pushed, they include Germany & Japan which do not possess Nuclear Weapons

So that is not correct.
Degradable - UK

02 November 2012

Degradable - UK

I think you give the general population too much credit. Most people I speak to have no opinion either way on British Nuclear weapons, in fact most people are indifferent to defence full stop, it is something they just expect to happen.
Rob - Telford

02 November 2012

Hi Degradable

Agree to a point, but Germany and Japan are not in P5 are they?
We would be the only current P5 member removing the capability.

And the other current members all have SSBN, SLBM capability, so us removing ours, in my opinion, would make people question whether the UK deserves that status.
Daniele Mandelli - Guildford

02 November 2012

Daniele

No, removing Trident and adding to our everyday "Conventional" Forces would
Allow us ...
Operate effective Anti-Piracy Patrols
Assist in Fisheries Protection
Assist Worldwide in disaster recovery
Influence in decision making by being able to offer relevant forces at immediate notice.
Take lead roles in Peacekeeping without overstretch.
We would actually have a better standing with every day REAL issues.

I also would like this quote by PM to be looked at...

"Can we afford it? Yes we can," he said. "Looked at over its lifetime, the submarine-based Trident deterrent costs us about 6 per cent of the defence budget to operate."

That is a blatant manipulation of the facts. 6% of TOTAL defence budget to operate. Trouble is that Budeget is not the money used for procurement.
No we only have in the order of £150 over the next decade.
Out of that we would be asked to find £25-£35 Billion for replacement is effectively 30%.
I am afraid you are walking blindly into destruction of UK conventional forces at the altar of Trident.
Degradable - UK

02 November 2012

Or, an alternative.

Replacing Trident by using money from the Treasury, as being a nuclear power is a national strategic decision, which MoD should not have to pay for, and adding to our everyday "Conventional" forces.

All achievable. It is successive governments reducing our conventional forces, not Trident.

£200 plus billions on the welfare state. £14 plus billions on aid abroad, no idea off my head how much to the EU without checking. How many Billions could be removed from these?

And if, as a result of replacing Trident, our conventional forces are cut further, then that is government policy not putting the money for both.

The need for conventional forces or not does not make the desire to remain a nuclear power any less relevant.

"I am afraid you are walking blindly into destruction of UK conventional forces at the altar of Trident."

Again, government policy, and I would blame them, not the need to replace Trident with Cruise Missiles that would be no deterrent at all, or unilateral disarmament as you propose.

On your other points.

Allow us ...
"Operate effective Anti-Piracy Patrols"

This could be achieved easily by using RFA tyope vessels with helicopters and RM, not expensive war fighting assets like T23's or T45's!

Another excellent idea I read often in here is buying several cheaper corvette type vessels for this sort of thing. Not expensive.

"Assist in Fisheries Protection"

We do that anyway.

"Assist Worldwide in disaster recovery"

We do that too. Gabriel in his blog suggested that Largs Bay could have been retained easily for just that purpose.

"Influence in decision making by being able to offer relevant forces at immediate notice."

Being in the P5 means we do just that. We might shortly send Typhoons half way round the world, how many countries can do that, with the logistical tail that implies. The carrier(s) will only enhance that.

"Take lead roles in Peacekeeping without overstretch."

Agreed. We take lead roles anyway since so many countries armed forces seem to be there to posture without having the political balls or military professionalism to get involved.
Overstretch has been around for a long time.

"Can we afford it? Yes we can," he said. "Looked at over its lifetime, the submarine-based Trident deterrent costs us about 6 per cent of the defence budget to operate."

That is a blatant manipulation of the facts. 6% of TOTAL defence budget to operate. Trouble is that Budeget is not the money used for procurement."

I agree with you here. Again though, it is a political decision to starve the forces of money. I do not blame Trident.

We will have to agree to disagree!
Daniele Mandelli - Guildford

03 November 2012

To the best of my knowledge,the first patrol of Britains SSBN's carrying the Polaris missile took place in 1968. This marked the transition of the UK's nuclear deterent being provided by the RN as opposed to the RAF.

As far as I am aware this transition was completed in 1969 when the RAF finaly stood down its nuclear strike force,since when the deterent has been in the hands of the RN.

Are we now being asked to believe that the RAF's nuclear strike force is going to be resurected,the following quote would seem to suggest just that.

"and I am sure a nuclear capable Typhoon, if required at shortish notice."

This is not only ludicrous,but is espoused by someone who is constantly quoting the NPT,and repeatedly us that China and Russia are no threat as the have signed a 'No first strike' agreement.Which as any right thinking person knows is not worth the paper it is written on.

If this is though the case then why on earth would we need this nuclear capable aircraft.
This by someone who admits to accepting UK unilateral disarmament,in the next second suggesting a airborne nuclear deterent.

To be generous I can only describe this sort of thinking as 'wooly headed'
michael - notts

03 November 2012

Amazed...
Daniele,
Anti Piracy needs Comms, Needs Radar, Surface Search Capability, Speed, and numerous other options. We used to operate with 3 Ships in that area, Now we struggle to keep 1. You need to pay to get a Cheap Escort... We will have no Equipment funds.

Fisheries Protection.
No Maritime Surveillance, Not enough vessels. Mackerel Catch being swiped by other nations and over done, French Fishing Vessels ganging up on UK in territorial waters. Now other areas of responsibility being added such as Ofshore power... We need to build an MPA solution and have more fisheries, but we need funds...Guess What.........
Gabriel may not with all respect have served or fully understand from a logistic, rather than an acedemic and interest.
All UK Ships carried equipments and Crews capable of providing massive manpower resource, Electrical Generation, Air Ambulance, Surveillance etc, IS patrols. This is only achievable at short notice by having vessels in the area to assist in event of disaster. 1 RFA will help but not be enough. More vessels in the right areas at the right time. And GOd knows we seem to be seeing more natural disasters, and we have arguably less coordinated response.
Imagine an increased C17 force with more surface vessels as well to respond to crisis.
But alas we have chosen Trident.... (Without Debate)
A few Typhoon sent is a gesture, but we all know they are lacking AESA Radar capability. We have a number of enhancements that could be done to these air systems to make them without doubt the most suitable airframes for export.
But you guessed it.... We spent the cash on Trident... Oh and we will be lucky if the RAF can field 150 frontline fighters in 10 years time..........
(Never in the field of Human history has so much been expected of so few.....)
Carriers are mentioned by you. An asset that will allow us to do DR, Peacekeeping and Projection to name but a few things. Yet with no insufficient budget......
Overstretch has been grumbled about, we used to whine, about deploying somewhere when we got back, that was part of the job... Today they are deploying back to WarZones, without rest...
We lost a young Commando this week who arguably had more experience in 3 years that service personnel I know (Including me) had in whole service life. This is Overstretch...
I think you seem to believe the government and people will give more money. They won`t, many would rather that money was spent on Welfare and Economic Aid.
Therefore it is the responsibility of the Forces Leaders to spell out we can not chop little bits from everywhere and still have capability. Today we have reached a tipping point. Today we have to debate and determine what large capability we are willing to give up so the others can stay effective.
We can choose Trident replacement. I am happy with that as long as if we do, we have minimum of 4 subs, and a vessel capable of 16 missiles with MIRV.
Or we can decide to not renew Trident. Take the moment to meet NPT, and increase spend on conventional forces. We can keep our nuclear materials and knowledge. We will have time to rebuild , (If Iran / Korea can I am sure we could).
Now is the first opportunity since the end of WW2. We can live under the US nuclear umbrella I am sure if our politicians spell out and meet a 2% of GDP for conventional force levels and an active role in UN operations.
We have never had as safe a moment as now, you could argue, but who is the threat that Trident will protect us from, which a well constructed agreement with US will not.
This is a massive topic and as I write I consider things like Politicians and Global Playing... All these things are relevant, but I am assuming the politicians will continue to meddle and not cut the requirements of UK conventional Forces.
Degradable - UK

03 November 2012

No to No Nukes!

Non of this nonsense about disarming and all that please. It's a tough world and you have to be willing the throw your weight around in order to get what you want. Living and working abroad you come to see that the Western world is held in basic mistrust/hated by all and sundry. From South America, to the Near and Middle East, parts of Africa, Russia, China etc, we have our fair share of enemies...

We need a stick to keep our way of life going. This means Trident, and the next-gen Vanguard subs (whatever the design).

Now, whether it really needs an initial 300mn GBP design contract (shudder to think how many RN vessels, Maritime Patrol Aircraft, or Army companies that along could fund) is another question. As is of course the source of the money for the replacement.

However I think we can/should stomach losing some size (but not unit capability) if it means being able to tell other nations to take a running jump when needed.
Anon - Abroad

05 November 2012

Oh Michael
You say I don`t read your posts. Yet I read them and try to allow for compromise. I ask about disarm, and state we could "allow contingency for Typhoon, F35"
etc.
You then make your statement about me not supporting NPT. What I am trying to spell out to you, is we will have the technology and the material for a number of years. If I was wrong we would have a very swift fall back position. Then we could invest to get back to new Weapons as required.
Degradable - UK

05 November 2012

"If the government persists in its determination to achieve its deterrent aim the conventional building program may well sustain serious setbacks. There are few enough ships, even with the new decision to increase the active Destroyer/Frigate numbers to 50. Further reductions would result in an imbalance in the fleet and the necessary abandonment of some of the current tasks.
The Royal Navy is the sole major NATO flett with bases within two days steaming of the North Cape area where conventional deterrence could be most effective; the alternative may rest, before long between mounting such an operation and the use of SSBN Patrols."

Quote from Janes Fighting Ship 1984-85.
I state to you all, conventional force erosion will be so catostrophic that UK inlfluence will suffer. Our ability to respond, assist and stand up for what we believe will be undermined.
Our technological infrastructure will suffer and a significant manufacturing base will be lost.
A point in time has given us the opportunity to take a "Risk" (I will accept that many perceive it to be). I believe we have an opportunity to not renew these weapons, but spend on our conventional forces
Gentlemen, ladies... That is my pitch, I strongly suggest you give it due consideration as failure continueing blindly with the current proposals will leave "My Son at sea without a paddle..."
Degradable - UK

05 November 2012

Replacing Trident is not just about the platform, but also about having the support forces required to operate it effectively.

When Polaris deployed on patrol, it did so with a MPA Nimrod, SSN and Towed Array frigate escort to ensure no other submarine (friendly or otherwise) was in the vicinity to tail it and compromise its position. The RN (and by default, the UK) does not have the SSN or firgate fleets to spare for SSBM escort. MPA was chopped in SDSR 2010 and now just Merlin ASW and Sentinal are available for area search. Sentinel will shortly be dispensed with.

This means any SSBM will have to deploy on its own and hope that it can get to its patrol position undetected. This is fanciful thinking at best and down right dangerous if the deterrent is every required. If UK wishes to retain CASD, it needs the full spectrum of support forces, not just a capable delivery platform.
AW Employee - Yeovil

05 November 2012

AW Employee,
Whilst you are correct as to the current situation,I honestly believe this will be a relatively short lived problem.

It is no surprise that only months after the demise of the MRA4,a committee was set up in the MOD headed by the RN as to the best possible future option for MPA. This committee is still very much active and it is generaly recognised that an announcement will be made 2015 regarding the platform. Not perfect,but getting there.

As for Sentinal, you are jumping the gun as no decision has yet been reached in regards to its future. Indeed as things stand it is looking more and more likely that it will be kept in service.

Regarding frigate numbers I entirely agree,13 T26 are not enough for our requirements. If we can't afford more than this number,then why not keep a few T23 in service specificaly for jobs such as sanitizing the area for the SSBN,and home water guard ships.

Another idea,if the passive sonar that Astute has is as good as they keep telling us,would it not be possible to retro fit to SSBN giving it a far better chance of finding any snoopers itself.Not being technicaly minded would this idea fly.
michael - notts

05 November 2012

Michael
The issue would then be how an SSBN handles a "contact"
SSN have fought a cold war with opposing SSN & SSK for many a year. Conquerors tale may wet your appetite, but I assure you there is a lot more to be told. Sadly SSBN can not play that game so the alternative would relaly be to return to Gareloch....
Degradable - UK