[Closed] Trident submarines without the missiles

Specifically without the [i]nuclear[/i] missiles.

Presumably it would still carry regular missiles (i.e. the ones that actually get used in combat, rather than the ones we shake at people to scare them)

Think we've already done aircraft carriers without the aircraft, or vice versa.

Given that 80%+ of the capital cost of trident successor was the new submarines and infrastructure, and 90%+ of the future in service and maintenance cost, it appears that Jezzas solution to the 'Trident white elephant' is to replace it with a white elephant with three legs and no tusks...

Presumably it would still carry regular missiles (i.e. the ones that actually get used in combat, rather than the ones we shake at people to scare them)

It would seem like a lot of money to deliver a cruise missile.

It would seem like a lot of money to deliver a cruise missile.

It is already a lot of money to carry around a bogeyman that we will never use.

Just seen this myself I would have thought the expensive bit is the keeping 4 ships running 24/7 with crew, fuel, power etc.

Not the Nuclear Armageddon just sat in the silos waiting to be fired. Although I suppose a full service and MOT on a nuclear weapon every (insert time scale) does not come cheap.

Personally I think we need to keep them as one day to piss the yanks off North Korea my decide to give us in the UK a nice sun tan and I would hope someone in a bunker somewhere as most of us vaporize, would do the same back, if they have the balls that is.

We should have used them already anyway on the new IS area on the globe IMO. At least we would have got some of our moneys worth out of them.

badllama - Member

We should have used them already anyway on the new IS area on the globe IMO. At least we would have got some of our moneys worth out of them.

Integration of a different, i.e. non-nuclear weapon system will cost millions. What would their role be? The UK already has the Astute class for conventional attack. Seems like a typical politician's not thought through idea!

I posted in the Corbyn thread. A nuclear submarine without missiles and Corbyn are both equally ineffective. I have Andrew Marr show downloaded will watch it later. His stance on the Falklands will go down like a lead balloon on the doorstep too.

Corbyn is skewered on Trident as the Unions are "pro" and he dodged the issue at the party conference so renewal is offi ial party policy and cannot be easily changed before the upcoming vote

It would seem like a lot of money to deliver a [s]cruise[/s] intercontinental ballistic missile.

the 5000+ warheads the US has did nothing to protect them from the 9-11 attacks, terrorists sail a nuclear device into New York harbour and detonate it who are they going to nuke ?

It's simple though isn't it? He's offering it as a solution to the 'killing Trident will put thousands of ship builders out of work' argument. Whether it's a realistic argument remains to be seen; we need to know more about what he would [i]actually[/i] do.

North Korea my decide to give us in the UK a nice sun tan

The problem is of course that whether we have similar weapons makes absolutely no difference at all to a nut bag state like North Korea just as it makes no difference to ISIS or a cyber attack, both of which are the more likely dangers we face in the future, neither of which can be countered with the use of these weapons.

In the very near future the seas will be crawling with drone subs, making the ONLY advantage (stealth) that these subs possess redundant at a stroke.

There are some proper numpties in the world right enough.. 🙂

Those campaigning to scrap trident don't really automatically fall into that category though..
I think it's the old guard Eton mafia (and their sycophantic cronies and dewy eyed minions) that are sadly deluded if they think they can pull the wool over our eyes for too much longer 😆

It's simple though isn't it? He's offering it as a solution to the 'killing Trident will put thousands of ship builders out of work' argument.

This.

Corbyn's moral argument is with the advocates of nuclear armageddon, not with builders of fancy boats. That is a separate thing.

It's simple though isn't it? He's offering it as a solution to the 'killing Trident will put thousands of ship builders out of work' argument.

In the very near future the seas will be crawling with drone subs

It would seem like a lot of money to deliver a cruise missile.

hunter-killers, we already have quite a few.

JC really hasn't thought this through.

there probably is a much cheaper way of keeping our seat at the UN top table.

Corbyn's argument does seem a little odd. If Trident's not carrying nukes then the super-stealthy element of the deterrent becomes a bit redundant, which people above seem to be saying is where most of the money goes. In that case he might as well just give the money to some other job support scheme.

In the very near future the seas will be crawling with drone subs, making the ONLY advantage (stealth) that these subs possess redundant at a stroke.

the 5000+ warheads the US has did nothing to protect them from the 9-11 attacks, terrorists sail a nuclear device into New York harbour and detonate it who are they going to nuke ?

They did stop WW3 and the red army steaming across Europe all the way to Normandy.

And given Putin, that would become exceedingly more likely to happen again if they did not exist.

It's cheaper and exactly as useful, so there's that. TBF having the submarines at all makes no sense, so this is one of those situations where a suggestion can be entirely daft, and yet still not as daft as the status quo. I suppose all that can be positively said for this idea is that it holds up a mirror to existing stupidity. Spending 80% as much for something that doesn't do anything is still better than spending 100% as much for something that works but that you can never use.

It's like that bike you never ride. It doesn't make any sense at all to spend £800 on a bike with no wheels that you can't ride, but when the alternative is a £1000 bike you'll never ride, it makes total sense.

Corbyn comes out with some s***e but this really takes the cake. The V class aren't designed for anything other than carrying the deterrent. For conventional ops they can't compete with an A class (faster, quieter, cheaper, can already carry cruise missiles).

The V class can't fire tomahwaks and the like out of their torpedo tubes unlike the A class without extensive modifications, and they can't use their strategic missiles without the nukes as you wouldn't be able to tell the whether a missile is nuclear or not. IIRC the US looked at converting some of their SSBN's into conventional missile subs but Russia kicked off massively, warning it could lead to accidental nuclear war.

A Trident submarine is only good at one job; finding somewhere to hang out and then being extraordinarily quiet and unobserved until told it has to go play with the special fireworks.

It isn't capable of any other role. It's not fast, it's not particularly nimble, nothing a multi-role submarine needs to be.

To make the Replacement so would increase the cost many, many times.

Rachel

Snap! 🙂

Just a transparent ploy to hang on to a shred of his principles while keeping the unions happy. No power, no influence, no credibility.

He's jumped the shark.

{quote]thekingisdead - hunter-killers, we already have quite a few. Correct me if I'm wrong, but 'hunter killers' don't carry ICBMs, nuclear or conventional. An ability to deliver a conventional warhead, reliably and accurately anywhere in the world is probably a lot more [i]real world[/i] strategically useful than just paying to carry a small proportion of Americas nuclear arsenal in exchange for a seat at the 'big boy's table'.

Corbyn [i]could[/i] be suggesting that he would support the developing of something like url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prompt_Global_Strike ]this[/url]; to appease the 'warmongers' of the party and the general population, whilst maintaining his anti-nuclear stance.

Prompt Global Strike (PGS) is a United States military effort to develop a system that can deliver a precision-guided conventional weapon airstrike anywhere in the world within one hour, in a similar manner to a nuclear ICBM.[1][2] Such a weapon would allow the United States to respond far more swiftly to rapidly-emerging threats than is possible with conventional forces. A PGS system could also be useful during a nuclear conflict, potentially replacing the use of nuclear weapons against 30 percent of targets.[3] The PGS program encompasses numerous established and emerging technologies, including conventional surface-launched missiles and air- and submarine-launched hypersonic missiles, although no specific PGS system has yet been finalized as of 2015

It would seem like a lot of money to deliver a cruise missile.

Latest idiocy. what do we do with the submarines without the warheads but with the Trident missile system? Conventional warheads? Why would we spend all that money when we can already deliver them via current submarines, ships and aircraft? Barmy thinking driven solely by Union pressure and another example of policy from the hip of a desperate man. Waste of time having the labour defence review.

Latest idiocy

Crazy thinking by Corbyn and utter nonsense. As many above, the V Class is designed to carry the Strategic deterrent. Useless for anything else.

It's a Strategic deterrent not a Tactical weapon. Big difference.

And given Putin, that would become exceedingly more likely to happen again if they did not exist.

Putin just wants us to buy his gas and oil, the last thing he's going to do is blow us up.

Actually the US did convert 4 of the Ohio class from SSBN to SSGN. They don't fire tomahawks from a torpedo tube like an SSN, Instead they carry 7 in a vertical launcher in each of the former trident tubes. That's over 150 per sub. Plus 2 tubes act as air locks for swimmer or UUV deployment.

That's quite a handy capability to have sat around very quietly in the gulf on standby, ready to deploy 50 or so special forces and follow up with targeted missile strikes.

Also worth remembering that without the investment in successors to the V boats, there won't be a nuclear powered option to replace the Astutes, and quiet as air independent propulsion is, it doesn't have the ability to provide round the world presence at high speeds and underwater endurance the way that a nuclear plant does.

it could be argued that an 'conventional' armed ICBM is far more useful, as it has a possibility of actually being used.

Surely they've been used many times..? Nuclear missiles have been in use throughout the cold war.

They haven't been FIRED, but they weren't built to be fired.

Ah, this thread is going to decend into 'my weapon is bigger than your weapon' fapping again, isn't it? I think I'll [i]tactically[/i] withdraw.

However, one last FTFY;

the V Class is designed to carry the Strategic deterrent. Useless [s]for anything else[/s].

They did stop WW3 and the red army steaming across Europe all the way to Normandy.

And given Putin, that would become exceedingly more likely to happen again if they did not exist.

utter tosh if all you needed was nuclear weapons to prevent the russian hordes invading europe why invest so much money into conventional forces to do the same job, a10 a1m1 f15 apache all built for one purpose, why did they bother.

With the secretive nature of all things nuclear how about this. We tell everybody were building some really big nuclear torpedoes or whatever. In actual fact they are fakes (but we keep that bit quiet)... Hey presto...We have the deterent but just saved a few quid!

How do you know that hasn't already happened?

Isn't it what Russia sort of did in the cold war. (They had a few proper ones but rather exaggerated the number that actually worked)

That 'idiotic' that the warmongery Yanks are trying develop something similar?
Latest 'anti Corbyn mindless ranting' I think you mean.

no idea what your talking about please try in plain English? What American new design? They having a huge fleet of ICBM boats aren't about to follow Corbyn defence policy from the hip.

Why would he announce such a thing, because the Americans are developing their own new non nuclear missile submarines? This is news. Please explain.

Isn't it what Russia sort of did in the cold war. (They had a few proper ones but rather exaggerated the number that actually worked)

They flew their strategic bombers over Red Square in a continuous loop during a May Day parade to make the west think they had lots. Subsequent satellite photography showed the true number. Remember deception is part of the art of war.

I should add that spy satellite's were just being used at this point. They got a very good shot of the airfield and could count them on the ground all lined up 😀

But not to worry, their bombs didn't have any nuclear warheads anyway - hopefully... sorry couldn't resist

[url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bomber_gap ]The bomber gap[/url]

[img] [/img]

Got to admit it makes a good photo when launched at night.

Time for Dr. Strangelove

Dr. Strangelove recommends that the President gather several hundred thousand people to live in deep mineshafts where the radiation will not penetrate. He suggests a 10:1 female-to-male ratio for a breeding program to repopulate the Earth when the radiation has subsided.

Turgidson, worried that the Soviets will do the same, warns about a "mineshaft gap"

😀

Corbyn has no choice but to go for this approach - Labour is after all the working man's party and he can't exactly make his manifesto pledge "lose ten thousand jobs in the defence sector".

With the secretive nature of all things nuclear how about this. We tell everybody were building some really big nuclear torpedoes or whatever. In actual fact they are fakes (but we keep that bit quiet)... Hey presto...We have the deterent but just saved a few quid!

Would an option not be 'No ballistic missile subs but I'll build a fleet of air craft carriers / destroyers / whatever that'll keep the same jobs without threatening to nuke the world'?

I wonder how many jobs were lost when the US decided to cancel the Skybolt missle? and we had to retire the V bomber fleet.

The reason we have a sub launched US designed and controlled Polaris system is that they decided not to continue making the aircraft launched bomb we were using before...

Independent system my arse.

That, and the realisation that subs are much, much more secure than using air or land launched systems

The reason we have a sub launched US designed and controlled Polaris system is that they decided not to continue making the aircraft launched bomb we were using before...

It's really not.

The submarines offer a much more effective strategic deterrent.

It's a terrible idea coming from the school of Blairs third way, that in the effort to appease everyone, instead makes no one happy.

Why is he even commenting on it anyway surely he should be saying 'cheers for the question but until the Labour defence review is complete, policy remains as it was'.

Not true RAF continued with a nuclear delivery role.

Main reason was sound, manned bombers were unlikely to penetrate Russian airspace and deliver their weapons. Also aircraft were likely to be destroyed in a first strike. ICBMs in subs pretty much undetectable and safe from nuclear first strike and so was a credible deterrent.

Our deterent is independent. We just use thier systems. They have no control over our systems. IMHO if your going to go nuclear and can buy off the shelf then you save a lot of tax payers money.

Vulcans and Victors continued on in RAF service way past there sell by date as tankers and bombing the Falklands

Agree with dragon.

Tornado GR1 was still carrying free fall nuclear bombs until 1998.

Vulcans and Victors continued on in RAF service way past there sell by date as tankers and bombing the Falklands

Wait...are you suggesting that things designed to do one thing, could be perhaps reconfigured to do something else? Maybe we could think of something else we could do that with..? Something that currently carries nuclear weapons perhaps, I mean if we've done it once already?

Our deterent is independent.

But this is not convincing. In the days when Bruce Kent led CND, one of the great hawks of the era, Air Vice-Marshal Stuart Menaul wrote, in 1980: "Britain no longer has an independent nuclear deterrent ... strategic considerations as far as Britain is concerned are no longer relevant ... it could only be used after authority for the use of nuclear weapons had been conveyed from the President of the United States to SACEUR [the US general at Nato]." Even further back, in 1962, Robert McNamara, then US defense secretary, stated that the UK did not operate independently.

The absorption of the UK into the US nuclear force was made explicit only this year. Stephen Johnson, the American admiral in charge of the US Trident programme, gave his annual progress report to Congress. Among his top accomplishments for "sustainment of our [ie the US] sea-based deterrent" was sending HMS Victorious to sea after a refit. He does not list the British Trident submarine separately. No, the British Trident submarine is simply listed with the American ones under the heading "Today's Force".

Well it is independent in that after we make the initial purchase of the system we have the industry, skills, capability to maintain it over its entire life. We practice drills and strategies to actually deploy them. This is something we can't switch off and switch on as and when we feel like it - if we ditch Trident then that is it for a UK nuclear deterrent/threat forever. We can't just pick it up in 20 or so years if the worlds outlook turns worse than we guessed/hoped (or Corbyn is guessing) and the Nuclear equipped Chinese, ****stani's, Indians, Russians, North Koreans and who know's who else, starts to get a bit frisky with the rest of the world We. That would leave only the Americans and the French - so that means just the Americans in reality as the French will just surrender. And then there is no guarantee that the Americans won't just feed us to the wolves and sit back and defend themselves - sacrifice us. Not a particularly fantastic situation for a future world we cannot predict at threat to be in.

Also with all these other nations with Nukes how will we negotiate with them to disarm if we don't have them (there are constant negotiations/discussions going on all the time around minimising and reducing the worlds global stockpile of nukes). We will have no negotiating power.

Land based and airborne based nukes are useless - aircraft will be shot down long before they are in a position to deploy the weapon, ground based forces are constantly monitored and tracked and will be taken out. At least with sub Bourne nukes you have half a chance of retaining a weapons system to deal with whatever the aftermath might be from a nuclear strike.

Unfortunately Pandora's box has been opened and we've passed the point of no return. So as effective or ineffective the system really is I would prefer to have it just in case. Cornyn's is just trying to impose his own personal agenda, trying to cut a deal with his Union puppet masters to help him impose his own will and to hell with democracy.

Well it is independent in that after we make the initial purchase of the system we have the industry, skills, capability to maintain it over its entire life.

nope the missiles go back to the US Navy at Kings Bay, Georgia, USA for servicing

At least with sub Bourne nukes you have half a chance of retaining a weapons system to deal with whatever the aftermath might be from a nuclear strike.

what? Mass murder masquerading as revenge?

What a great footnote in History to leave, "Britain was evaporated, but in the world's most pointless and futile gesture it annihilated millions of innocent civilians in a desperate act of vengeance, and even more of earth was rendered uninhabitable thanks to the most ridiculous act of petulance the world has ever seen"

Kings Bay, MOD pays £12 million a year towards the running cost of the base.

Land based and airborne based nukes are useless

someone should tell france, usa, russia, china, israel, ****stan, india and north korea.

Our deterent is independent. We just use thier systems. They have no control over our systems. IMHO if your going to go nuclear and can buy off the shelf then you save a lot of tax payers money.

Thought one of the major downsides of Trident is that the Americans can veto a launch decision.

Double post. Stupid forum.

Nickc

Yes but why would we now, knowing Corbyn would not put nuclear weapons in them and not pull the trigger, spend the huge amount of money to deploy a less than best solution?

Why not buy another couple of Astute subs? His policy, cancel Trident replacement completely, is at least rational. Saddling us with a number of huge expensive submarines duplicating existing capabilities just doesn't make sense. Unless as dragon says above, he's trying auto appease everyone?

I wonder how many jobs were lost when the US decided to cancel the Skybolt missle? and we had to retire the V bomber fleet.

Not as many as when Labour cancelled Blue Streak I'll bet... (For which Skybolt was the intended replacement) even though that wasn't why v-force got retired.

Why is he even commenting on it anyway surely he should be saying 'cheers for the question but until the Labour defence review is complete, policy remains as it was'.

Very good question, perhaps because there's a risk that they will come up with the 'wrong' answer? (as reinforced by his mealy mouthed inability to give precedence to the Falkland Islanders right to self determination)

ballistic missile subs but I'll build a fleet of air craft carriers / destroyers / whatever that'll keep the same jobs without threatening to nuke the world'?

only 3-5% of the MOD budget is spent on the nuclear deterrent, Nukes are infinitely cheaper than running a conventional military with global reach.

What a great footnote in History to leave, "Britain was evaporated, but in the world's most pointless and futile gesture it annihilated millions of innocent civilians in a desperate act of vengeance, and even more of earth was rendered uninhabitable thanks to the most ridiculous act of petulance the world has ever seen"

Which is why they will never be used by either side. As mad as MAD is , it's preferable to the no nuke option.

I said this on here before, there were a lot of people objecting to the money spent on Fighter Command radar and new aircraft in 1935. Good job they didn't win the argument.

No they don't have any control over ours. The decision to fire can be made by the submarine Captain using the authority of the final letter which the Prime Minister alone writes and is carried in each boat.

Our weapons are under NATO command but w still have the final say or can withdraw them from their use if we feel it's in the national interest.

What a great footnote in History to leave, "Britain was evaporated, but in the world's most pointless and futile gesture it annihilated millions of innocent civilians in a desperate act of vengeance, and even more of earth was rendered uninhabitable thanks to the most ridiculous act of petulance the world has ever seen"

Unfortunately that's about right. The reason for hiding your nuclear deterent somewhere deep in the Atlantic or wherever is that it will survive a pre emptive strike designed to destroy our nuclear forces before they can retaliate. Thus they can't be sure they will destroy your nuclear forces and we will have the option to strike back. QED MAD and deterrence. We all sincirely hope the deterent affect works which is why it needs to remain credible or you should scrap all your weapons and save the cash.

[quote=gobuchul ]As mad as MAD is , it's preferable to the no nuke option.Which is precisely why nuclear non-proliferation has been the worst policy adopted since WW2. If all the countries that have been fighting each other since then had been given nuclear weapons, we'd have had world peace for the past 60 years.

Yes but why would we now, knowing Corbyn would not put nuclear weapons in them and not pull the trigger, spend the huge amount of money to deploy a less than best solution?

TBH Speccing one thing and then taking delivery of something completely different, not as capable and four times the cost, and 15 years after it was actually needed; has been the MOD modus operandi for as long as it's been in existence. Corbyn's idea fits into that pretty well I'd have thought. There must be civil servants in Admiralty house looking for the leak right now...

Shooting blanks....

Ha ha ha yeah nickc

reason for hiding your nuclear deterent somewhere deep in the Atlantic or wherever is that it will survive a pre emptive strike designed to destroy our nuclear forces before they can retaliate.

Except it's been known since the 90's that it's a bit of a stretch of imagination that the deterrent is totally secure from being pre-emptively taken out.

Most true military nuclear deterrents have multiple platforms for this very reason. Ours is simply political.

Rachel

I mean, who would have noticed another madman round here? Captain Blackadder: [whistle blows] Good luck, ...

Except it's been known since the 90's that it's a bit of a stretch of imagination that the deterrent is totally secure from being pre-emptively taken out.

I'm sure no deterent is 100%. But all the major protagonist have invested in this method. I'm sure none of us really knows how secure it is. But given everyone is doing it then it leads me to think that it's still the best option.

tinybits - Member

Would an option not be 'No ballistic missile subs but I'll build a fleet of air craft carriers / destroyers / whatever that'll keep the same jobs without threatening to nuke the world'?

Well, a key part of the argument is that we need to keep making nuclear submarines for ourselves because it's the only way we can preserve that unique skillset which is only useful for making nuclear submarines... for... ourselves.

Hmm.

We do employ a lot of white elephant handlers, breeders and feeders but do we really believe it'd be impossible for them to do anything else? We could just invent some other bullshit industry and spend the same amount of money having half of them build spitfires and the other half take them apart, or similar. Or, y'know, support a useful industry, invest in infrastructure, that sort of thing. If that seems unreasonable, then I suppose we could train 10000 doctors but pay them to not treat any patients, and call them disease deterrants, and declare the scheme to be a success in 20 years because the human race didn't die out.

we will keep trident and they will build Successor as its the only reason we keep a permanent seat on the un security council.