Alternatives to Trident?

Now that the Government seems to have pushed its commitment to a new Trident submarine
back to after 2015 it might be appropriate to look at how the requirement might be met.

It seems logical to start with what the US Navy is planning to do to replace its own Trident boats.
If the US is working on a new missile/silo/sub combo it would seem to make sense for the UK to adopt
parts of this as we did with the R and V class boats.

Does the new sub need to carry 16 missiles?

Is reducing the number of submarines a false economy?

The US does not deploy any nuclear tipped cruise missiles at this time, but is this likely to stay
the same in the future. If the US adopted a smaller cruise or other type of missile this might help the Liberal Democrats with their favoured solution.

I have deliberately closed discussion of abandoning the deterrent altogether on this thread as I want to look at the possible options. Similarly I think it is unrealistic at this late stage to imagine that the UK can go it alone on developing a delivery system of its own (again this subject is well covered elsewhere).

The Astute and its successors seem to offer a submarine to carry a future deterrent, but in what form?

UK 75

Why don't the US & UK share the same design of SSBN and split the contracts to build them among their respective shipyards?

A 3/4 (depending on availability rates) fleet of SSBN's is the only truly viable option for a UK nuclear capability. The Liberal Democrats have a serious policy problem, they basically want nuclear disarmament, but have now seen the intelligence that says it is actually a good idea to keep it. Unfortunately the irrational, emotional and delusional morons who vote for them still want it scrapped so they have come up with the crazy cruise missile idea.

I have trouble believing there is money to replace the Vanguard class of SSBNs seeing that the US is now saying they cannot afford a Trident class replacement. Current very high range cost estimate is $8 billion/boat.

Do you build a smaller boat with 10 missiles? 8 missiles? Do you temporarily appease the disarmament crowd with a plan to have less tomorrow than we have today?

http://www.heraldscotland.com/oops-american-missile-to-replace-trident-is-too-big-for-britain-s-nuclear-submarines-1.828239

The above article says the US is exploring a 120" diameter missile tube, although IMHO they won't build a 120" diameter missile. Is this size to accommodate a Trident or Trident sized replacement (87" diameter) and another weapon? If you build a 24 tube replacement submarine for Trident do you fill every tube with a SLBM or a sub launched UAV or three medium range global strike missiles?

It will be very interesting to see what comes out of the US Navy's AoA and whether Britain will go it alone or joint develop with the US.

sealordlawrence said:

they basically want nuclear disarmament, but have now seen the intelligence that says it is actually a good idea to keep it. Unfortunately the irrational, emotional and delusional morons who vote for them still want it scrapped so they have come up with the crazy cruise missile idea.

Click to expand...

id love to see the justification for keeping strategic type weapons especially when the UK. is cash strapped elsewhere in areas where actually needed !!? (is staying at the big table really so important?)
on the other hand there is an argument for a nuclear 'storm shadow' type weapon as a tactical/short strategic deterrent

TsrJoe said:

sealordlawrence said:

they basically want nuclear disarmament, but have now seen the intelligence that says it is actually a good idea to keep it. Unfortunately the irrational, emotional and delusional morons who vote for them still want it scrapped so they have come up with the crazy cruise missile idea.

Click to expand...

id love to see the justification for keeping strategic type weapons especially when the UK. is cash strapped elsewhere in areas where actually needed !!? (is staying at the big table really so important?)
on the other hand there is an argument for a nuclear 'storm shadow' type weapon as a tactical/short strategic deterrent

Click to expand...

Compared to a D-5, Storm Shadow ain't much of a deterrent, even nuclear armed.

TsrJoe said:

id love to see the justification for keeping strategic type weapons especially when the UK. is cash strapped elsewhere in areas where actually needed !!? (is staying at the big table really so important?)
on the other hand there is an argument for a nuclear 'storm shadow' type weapon as a tactical/short strategic deterrent

Click to expand...

NPT is basically dead, India has an exception, Israel has been outside it for years, Pakistan is nuclear armed, North Korea has tested nuclear arms, Iran almost certainly has a nuclear weapons programme and Burma has an embryonic programme, In addition, Russia, which has already invaded one of its neighbours and continues to modernise its own nuclear forces as does China.

The trident replacement will enter service around 2020 and will remain in service for 25+ years, that is 35 years from now, the same timeframe in the last century witnessed the two most destructive conflicts in human history, but of course the Liberal Democrats think it is fine because the Cold War is over and obviously the UK will never face a military threat from a nuclear power again. :

A tactical nuclear deterrent defeats the object of having one in the first place and it is stupid to suggest it in place of Trident. A tactical deterrent can not deliver anywhere near the destruction levels required for real deterrence. It is the capacity to strike large tracts of the earth with multiple highly survivable warheads. Your Storm Shadow idea will have no where near the required survivability.

As for cash, the UK spends just 2.5% of GDP (about 5% of total government expenditure) on defence and that will shrink further under the current cuts regime. If the UK wanted to it could fund a massive expansion of its nuclear capability. Not to mention the UK still has the world sixth largest economy and a growing population.

why?

TsrJoe said:

why?

Click to expand...

Why what?

sealordlawrence said:

Iran almost certainly has a nuclear weapons programme a

Click to expand...

Source ?

Anderman said:

sealordlawrence said:

Iran almost certainly has a nuclear weapons programme a

Click to expand...

Source ?

Click to expand...

The largest part of the international community.

Is it possible that the UK might create a next generation SLBM system with France? What about a European Union-financed/operated nuclear deterrent?

According to Wikipedia, the United States continues to provide about 180 tactical B61 nuclear bombs for use by Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkey.

Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty

Since the United Kingdom is a member of NATO and the European Union, why shouldn't European Union members states not help pay for their protection under the UK SLBM aegis? Certainly if the UK decides that it cannot afford to finance its SLBM deterrent on its own.

Some analysts believe that if Iran were to build nuclear weapons that Saudi Arabia would attempt to acquire or build nuclear weapons of its own and that it would precipitate an arms race in Asia with perhaps Egypt and Syria acquiring nuclear weapons as well.

Source:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/nuke.htm

An argument I have heard (or read) is that Polaris and Trident had the great advantage that a
potential opponent (usually Russia or China) would have no idea whether the missile coming at them was a US or British weapon, and that this thus acted as a "trigger" which enabled the UK to commit the US as well.

However, since it seems hard to use the weapons without the US consent it may also have suited the US to have another responsible democracy like the UK able to join it in causing opponents to have to wonder whether they could escape a nuclear response from the West.

My money remains on having a weapon like the US deployed weapon, not because of the above, but because it makes financial and operational sense for the USN and Royal Navy to build on 50 years of shared nuclear co-operation.

If the US deployed a Cruise or tactical style system this might allow us to do likewise, but the penetration issue (Trident remains unstoppable-almost) seems to make this unlikely.

What interests me is the question of the platform. Do we need 16 tubes, might 8 do (does this actually save any money?)

"Trident is the weapon Harrods would sell you " Sir Humphrey Appleby to Prime Minister Jim Hacker in the first episode of "Yes Prime Minister".

TsrJoe said:

my apologies to Ralph as this is off topic but in response, Iran has NO proven nuclear weapons programme, it does however have a verifiable nuclear power programme, a very different thing entirely!
this same speculative nonsense led to the Iraq debacle and the destruction of that countries infrastructure from which it will probably never recover ... a lesson we'v not learned i guess? (i do understand we needed an excuse tho same as with the current long term Iran leadup?)

the issue here is that countries in official statements tend not to lie, its the actual wording thats important, if they say they havent got or arent activly working on, why not believe til theres ACTUAL evidence to the contrary (eg Osirak was a nuclear power station in Iraq, and not intended for weapons grade enrichment, as was actually stated, prior and after the time of the raid, and has been verified since from neutral sources)

Click to expand...

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,673802,00.html

Please, stick with the fantasy that Iran is only interested in a peaceful nuclear programme (and obviously that is why they block UN inspections, hide shipments of heavy water and dig secret enrichment facilities in the side of mountains). :

Try and be a bit more imaginative than the just wheeling out the Iraq nonsense.

Triton said:

Is it possible that the UK might create a next generation SLBM system with France? What about a European Union-financed/operated nuclear deterrent?

According to Wikipedia, the United States continues to provide about 180 tactical B61 nuclear bombs for use by Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkey.

Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty

Since the United Kingdom is a member of NATO and the European Union, why shouldn't European Union members states not help pay for their protection under the UK SLBM aegis? Certainly if the UK decides that it cannot afford to finance its SLBM deterrent on its own.

Some analysts believe that if Iran were to build nuclear weapons that Saudi Arabia would attempt to acquire or build nuclear weapons of its own and that it would precipitate an arms race in Asia with perhaps Egypt and Syria acquiring nuclear weapons as well.

Source:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/nuke.htm

Click to expand...

This is actually a sensible idea in my opinion. The US is slowly losing interest in Europe (who can blame it) and Europe faces common threats, there is a strong argument that the EU should create common armed forces as a grander scale version of the European Defence Community. The problem is that all the European states would have to agree to stand by the security situations of all the current member states. Thus one might imagine German troops based on the Falklands (albeit their nationality would mean little as they would be EU troops).

Does the new sub need to carry 16 missiles?

Click to expand...

Depends on the likely target dispersal.

Is reducing the number of submarines a false economy?

Click to expand...

Very likely so. Facilities and costs to support 1 SSBN is merely extended to support 4, so the most costly SSBN is the first one, and each one after is actualy cheaper.

The US does not deploy any nuclear tipped cruise missiles at this time, but is this likely to stay
the same in the future. If the US adopted a smaller cruise or other type of missile this might help the Liberal Democrats with their favoured solution.

Click to expand...

There are two paths forward there, LO or high speed. Low Observable is problematic in that systems can detect it, especialy once its over the enemy states territory. High speed throws up problems of getting up to speed and then sustaining it in the face of the thermal issues it creates.
There is a third option, which is to swamp the enemy defences with sheer numbers.
SO I would guess none of them are actualy cheap.

The Astute and its successors seem to offer a submarine to carry a future deterrent, but in what form?

Click to expand...

Astute being based on the Vanguard diameter, is potentialy developable into a SSBN, albeit a inferior one to compared to a clear sheet of paper with the same basic systems.
Question there is, does a Astute development sustain the capacity to produce new nuclear submarines afterwards?

sealordlawrence said:

This is actually a sensible idea in my opinion. The US is slowly losing interest in Europe (who can blame it) and Europe faces common threats, there is a strong argument that the EU should create common armed forces as a grander scale version of the European Defence Community. The problem is that all the European states would have to agree to stand by the security situations of all the current member states. Thus one might imagine German troops based on the Falklands (albeit their nationality would mean little as they would be EU troops).

Click to expand...

I don't agree that the US is slowly losing interest in Europe. Despite some vocal isolationists, the United States has a warm relationship with the United Kingdom, our NATO allies, and our other friends in Europe. However, as the countries of the European Union move toward a Common Security and Defense Policy, it would be in the interest of the members of the European Union to have the military assets on their soil in the control of Europeans and not in the control of a foreign power, however amiable the relationship. This is especially true if the goal of the European Union is to create a European nation from its member states.

A European Union-financed SLBM-based nuclear deterrent, however, would force the United Kingdom to commit itself to the European Union instead of picking and choosing which elements of the EU it choses to adopt. It might also force the UK to side with Europe against the wishes of the United States in an international dispute. The United Kingdom may not be politically ready to make such a commitment to the EU.

As for alternatives to Trident, I understand that President George HW Bush invited the United Kingdom to participate in the SSBN(X) program. BAE Systems Submarine Solutions perhaps could manufacture the SSBN(X) design under license to save on development costs of a new system or perhaps a co-development deal could be reached between the US and the UK?

Also how does the French M45 SLBM system compare to the Trident? Could there be a UK-France co-development of the next generation SLBM system?

Triton said:

Also how does the French M45 SLBM system compare to the Trident? Could there be a UK-France co-development of the next generation SLBM system?

Click to expand...

The M51 is their latest one in development.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5beVx31OSvE

sferrin - What a cool way to test an SLBM on land thanks for the video. The M51 looks exactly like a Trident especially with the nosecone probe, do you know it dimensions?

Length: 10m
Dia: 2.3m
Weight: 52 tonnes.

(that's from the manufacturer)

http://www.astrium.eads.net/en/programme/m-51.html

Sorry, I had intended to write M-51 and not the earlier M-45. The EADS Astrium M-51 certainly resembles the UGM-133 Trident II (Trident D5). What is the expected service life of the French Triomphant-class SSBN? Or will the Vanguard-class need to be replaced before the US needs to develop SSBN(X) and the French Navy needs to develop a replacement to the Triomphant-class? Or can the Vanguard-class be kept going until a co-development deal is reasonable with the United States or France?

Trident II stats for comparison:

General Characteristics, Trident II (D5)
Primary Function: Strategic Nuclear Deterrence.
Contractor: Lockheed Missiles and Space Co., Inc., Sunnyvale, CA.
Date Deployed: 1990.
Unit Cost: $30.9 million.
Propulsion: Three-stage solid-propellant rocket.
Length: 44 feet (13.41 meters).
Diameter: 83 inches (2.11 meters).
Weight: 130,000 pounds (58,500 kg).
Range: Greater than 4,000 nautical miles (4,600 statute miles, or 7,360 km).
Guidance System: Inertial.
Warhead: Nuclear MIRV (Multiple Independently Targetable Re-entry Vehicles).

What I don't understand is why when costs are talked about, those pushing for a direct ballistic missile replacement aren't pointing out the costs will be over 20-25 years.

Over that 20-25 year period, Britain will spend, based on last year's figures, £1,000 billion on alcohol, £325 billion on tobacco and £1,050 billion on gambling.

PMN1 said:

What I don't understand is why when costs are talked about, those pushing for a direct ballistic missile replacement aren't pointing out the costs will be over 20-25 years.

Over that 20-25 year period, Britain will spend, based on last year's figures, £1,000 billion on alcohol, £325 billion on tobacco and £1,050 billion on gambling.

Click to expand...

Because the people shouting about Trident are the Liberal Democrats and they are by far the most dishonest of the three parties (quite an achievement), an even more telling figure is that the total UK defence expenditure is just 2.5% of GDP equating to just 5% of total government expenditure.

sealordlawrence said:

PMN1 said:

What I don't understand is why when costs are talked about, those pushing for a direct ballistic missile replacement aren't pointing out the costs will be over 20-25 years.

Over that 20-25 year period, Britain will spend, based on last year's figures, £1,000 billion on alcohol, £325 billion on tobacco and £1,050 billion on gambling.

Click to expand...

Because the people shouting about Trident are the Liberal Democrats and they are by far the most dishonest of the three parties (quite an achievement), an even more telling figure is that the total UK defence expenditure is just 2.5% of GDP equating to just 5% of total government expenditure.

Click to expand...

Oh I can understand those not wanting it conveniently ignoring that little point but those pushing for a direct ballistic missile replacement don't seem to make much use of it.

Triton said:

Sorry, I had intended to write M-51 and not the earlier M-45. The EADS Astrium M-51 certainly resembles the UGM-133 Trident II (Trident D5).

Click to expand...

Only in that they're both SLBMs.

I could see several possible solutions.

First, buy into either the US or French SSBN programs. Not necessarily multi-shipyard construction, it might be better to do an offset deal trading SSBNs for small combatants, given the problems the US Navy has had with the Littoral Combat Ship.

Second, look into the possibility of basing part of the UK force ashore. Buy 2-3 subs to keep one at sea (or sortie-ready in a crisis), but your primary counter to the one-off nut-nation attack is a battery of a dozen missiles ashore.

Now, some facts...the cost of adding or subtracting missiles does not affect unit cost terribly much. That's why the Ohio class have 24 tubes - economy of scale. From a military perspective, 8-12 is a better bargain to disperse the deterrent force among more hulls.

Scientists Urge U.K. to Drop Trident Replacement Plan
Wednesday, Oct. 13, 2010

The United Kingdom should place its nuclear warheads in storage and drop a $30 billion strategic deterrent modernization plan to preserve more funding for nonmilitary science, 36 prominent researchers and engineers said today in an open letter to British Prime Minister David Cameron (see GSN, Sept. 30).

Roughly $3.2 billion of the nation's $12.7 billion in annual science spending covers defense activities, including work at such sites as the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston, the London Guardian reported. The Aldermaston site would play a key role in the plan to update the country's Trident nuclear missile system by replacing all four Vanguard-class ballistic missile submarines.

The coalition government in London is led by Conservatives who favor the Trident replacement plan, while junior partner Liberal Democrats argue the plan is too costly and unnecessary in today's security environment. Cameron last week reaffirmed his determination to move forward with the replacement plan (see GSN, Oct. 8).

"Of particular concern is the fact that world-class research into health and global environmental problems is under threat, while the government continues to fund the multibillion pound research program at the Atomic Weapons Establishment," states the letter, signed by a Nobel Prize recipient and seven Royal Society fellows.

"Current [Defense Ministry] funding is not only disproportionate, it also includes expenditure on programs which are of minimal benefit or counterproductive to the U.K.'s security," the letter says.

"We believe that any cuts to public science spending should predominantly come from cuts to the Ministry of Defense's research and development," the letter states.

British leaders should "shift their priorities so that science and technology can contribute to tackling the real threats to the U.K.'s present and future security," the scientists said. The letter calls for additional spending on certain defense issues, including development of means for verifying compliance with arms control pacts.

"We're not calling for a slash in defense funding, but we do need to get the proportions right. There's been a disproportionate emphasis on military research and development and it is clear why with Britain's armaments industry," letter signatory Alastair Hay, a chemical and biological weapons specialist at Leeds University, told the Guardian.

"I seriously question the need for Trident and the need for a nuclear deterrent generally. The question really is whether the country can afford it when a lot of people are going to be out of work," Hay said (Ian Sample, London Guardian, Oct. 13).

Atomic Weapons Establishment funding has been poorly spent, the BBC yesterday quoted Stuart Parkinson, director of Scientists for Global Responsibility, as saying.

"This year it received an additional [$1.6 billion], to build new technical facilities when the question of whether the U.K. will build a new nuclear warhead design is up now in the air. That can't make sense," Parkinson said.

The British Defense Ministry stood by the spending strategy.

"Military research and development directly supports our troops in Afghanistan by providing battle-winning technologies which are saving lives on the front line," a spokesman said.

"There is much cross-over between defense and civilian research, with microwave ovens, infrared devices and liquid crystal displays all starting as defense projects," he added.

"A value-for-money review on replacing the U.K.'s nuclear deterrent is being undertaken, but the government remains committed to maintaining the U.K.'s minimum and credible submarine-based nuclear deterrent, based on the Trident missile system," the spokesman said (Pallab Ghosh, BBC News, Oct. 12).