Submarine-based system is the most likely option
By Michael Evans, Defence Editor
COST is the main factor as defence officials look at replacing Britain’s independent nuclear deterrent, which consists of four Vanguard Class submarines, armed with the American D5 ballistic missile with a British-designed warhead. A land-based or air-launched missile system looks less favourable. It might seem less expensive to build silos in some corner of Britain or adapt bombers to take nuclear-tipped cruise missiles. But neither option is attractive, either militarily or politically.
The maximum range for a cruise missile, under current technology, is about 1,850 miles. A bomber carrying cruise weapons would have to fly closer to the target before releasing them. The same argument goes for submarines with nuclear cruise missiles.
A ground-based system would invite Greenham Common-style demonstrations and would be more vulnerable to pre-emptive attack by a nuclear-armed enemy. A submarine-launched ballistic missile, on the other hand, has a range of 7,500 miles and can reach its target in 30 minutes.
However, submarines are hugely expensive to build, which is why the Government is likely to favour one of two options now being examined: either to extend the life of the Vanguard Class boats, the first of which is due to end its service life by 2023 or 2024, or to adapt the Royal Navy’s latest Astute Class submarines, three of which are now being built.
The cost would be considerable for either option but the bill for taxpayers would be lower than having to design and build a new submarine class. In all three cases, a commitment to retain submarines as the delivery system would safeguard thousands of jobs at Barrow and sustain the technological expertise that has kept this country in the forefront of submarine construction.
Britain has always been dependent on the US for supplying ballistic missiles, and this is unlikely to change. Although the French are developing a new submarine-launched missile, the M51, buying it would seem out of the question for political and practical reasons.
The British have a unique arrangement with the US Navy, under which all the Trident D5s for the Vanguard Class submarines are leased from a pool of missiles. The deal appears to have worked without a hitch.
The Americans are expected to upgrade the Trident D5s and eventually replace them with new ones, called Trident E6. Britain could follow suit, provided the timing was right, but lease fewer missiles. The warhead would still be designed at Aldermaston, the atomic weapons establishment in Berkshire.
No reliable cost figures have yet been produced, but the Vanguard Class Trident system cost about £10 billion, and a replacement seems likely to be £12 billion to £15 billion.
Britain has spent only about 4 per cent of its defence budget on nuclear systems, and the Government will not want to increase that when considering a Trident replacement.
)[/SIZE]