The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[1805]

What happens when one of them has a collision with a French submarine and needs replacing at sea at very short notice, and both your other submarines are in various stages of refit.

There is a reason that 4 submarines have been purchased for both previous classes.

If you ever end up in a situation where you have to "gap" a deterent force, you may as well have not build any of them.

3 boats should still be able to provide for 1 on patrol. I don't think it make sense with the significantly reduced state based nuclear threat, to maintain a 4th boat, when this could mean a significant reduction in conventional capability.

The potential gap you refer to caused by an accident, would have to happen at exactly the same time as a period of high alert and when we were unable to rely on our nuclear allies (US/France). This is surely such an unlikely set of circumstances?

I might be wrong but I think when the old R boats were retiring there was a time when we only had 3 active boats.

 

[Hambo]

[

"Let's face it, the best reason to keep the Vanguards/Tridents is because the French still have their Le Triomphants (and their new M-51s). If the French can afford it, by George, so can Brittania!

Cheers!"
Weasel there is a bit of psychology to it. If the UK wishes to retain a fair bit of influence at the top table it needs nuclear weapons. If not France has the sole voice in Europe, many here wont accept that.

The UK has few economic success stories at the moment but the amount of defence equipment we sell is one of them, and again perspective buyers do look at the all round capability of both UK forces and what we can still make and a nuclear missile carrying submarine is one of those impressive items.

Do we want to keep a hand in designing and maintaining warheads? Yes IMO. If the deterrent budget was "cut" by politicians, would it ever see its way into front line kit? I doubt it, so the conventional forces of the UK will never increase in size to make up for the loss of 4 boats, Trident infrastructure, industrial capacity etc and the political influence that goes with it.

I would personally approach the french for access to their missile and see how feasible it would be to mate a UK warhead and submarine to the missile and tube. Maybe not as effective as Trident but good enough and it would make it more independent from the US. It might even cost more not less though.

I can still see future scenarios where US goals move away from those of the UK or Europe. The program life will take us passed 2050, by then several things may have happened. Nuclear armed Russia may be flexing its muscles aggressively towards europe in which case we might really need a deterrent, or nuclear armed russia may have joined the economic and political union with western europe, and there may be three or four economic and political power blocks in the world, the Chinese, The Indians, The expanded EU plus Russia and Turkey etc etc and the US, whose President may wish to form aliances with the new power blocks and the S.American economies. All of those nuclear armed and all competing for energy resources and markets.

Build 4 smaller boats, 3 wont work, there has to be one at sea at all time or else its potentially worth the gamble of trying a pre-emptive strike on the sub base. Our borders are so porous, an enemy wouldnt even need a missile, a weapon could be smuggled in or dropped over the side of a container ship.

 

[1805]

1 - If the Chinese "lob" a nuke at London and we cannot respond, why should the US Risk MAD (and its total destruction) by retaliating on our behalf? This type of scenario has been argued at length and the conclusion is always the same. A Nuke power will not Nuke a fellow Nuke power in retaliation for a Nuclear attack on a non-Nike power.

It is quite easy to find out how many Trident boats are at Faslane. If you want to go low tech, you just turn up and watch. If you want to go hi-tech you can use a satellite picture. When they sail out from Faslane it is a very public operation. In a crisis situation this would be unacceptable.

I think it fair to say this counters your point here.

2 - Agreed, I see no reason why we should not be on cordial terms with China. However, we are talking about a hypothetical scenario here. In the medium term we do not know who will possess the capability to attack us with Nukes. China are one of a number who currently possess that capability, other states such as North Korea and Iran may possess that capability in the future.

Do remember that the UK's foreign policy will be very similar to the US's on certain issues such as N.Korea, Iran.

3 - Of course the Vanguards were not solely responsible for Cold War security. In fact, they came after the end of the Cold War. It is generally acknowledged that Nuclear weapons prevented the Cold War from going hot, and the UK arsenal will have played its role in this regard.

I accept that we have moved on from the Cold War, however the world is arguably more dangerous now than it was 25 years ago.

4 - with Tomahawks, the key is that they can be shot down. The whole point about Trident, and ICBM/SLBM's in general, is that they cannot be stopped. Provided both sides know that, and there is no uncertainty about that fact, stability is maintained. If one side thinks it can attack another and then defend its self from reprisal, there will always be the temptation to strike. In the hands of someone irrational, that is a dangerous combination.

Whilst Cruise Missiles can be "nuclear weapons" they cannot perform the function of a "deterrent".

I have no info on how many Tomahawks have been shot down, but I suspect the answer is greater than 1.

5 - Nuclear weapons are useful with rogue states, as a shield but not a sword. An established state would (or rather should) never launch a first strike on such a state. However, if future dictators sitting in Pyongyang, Tehran or wherever know that their cushy lifestyle can be wiped out in an instant, it will force them to exercise an element of restraint, which can only be a good thing. If they know they could Nuke the UK without our being able to do anything about it, they might use that against us (diplomatically and politically I mean).

6 - yes it is a status symbol. It is proof that we as a nation are prepared to guarantee our territorial integrity. Without this we would not still be considered a major world power.

7 - there is a threat from existing nuke states, because they are capable of attacking us. The relevant question is, are political and military circumstances such that they would chose to use that capability and attack us?

Right now I think the answer to that is no. the two main variables of this are that 1 - there is no reason to attack us, and 2 - we could retaliate. Whilst the circumstances in point 2 are fully under our control, the circumstances in point 1 are not entirely in our control and may be affected by the answer to point 2.

For all these reasons I expect Trident to be renewed.

I think I can see what you are trying to get at, however the arguments as to the relative Merits of Trident as a deterrent have been argued and discussed at length in the highest elements of government. The Trident system comes out on top.

What you need to do is convince myself and others that we will not need a nuclear deterrent in the next 50 years, and that is something you can never prove, only speculate.

Again, if Trident is not renewed it will be for economic reasons only.

If we need an independent deterrent, which I personally feel we do, I agree it has to be an SLBM. I just can't see many subsonic cruise missiles getting past decent air defences.


I would be happy to tender a French missile against a US, I'm sure we would get a great deal from the French, who must be desperate to mitigate the burden on their own defence budget.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

1 - If the Chinese "lob" a nuke at London and we cannot respond, why should the US Risk MAD (and its total destruction) by retaliating on our behalf? This type of scenario has been argued at length and the conclusion is always the same. A Nuke power will not Nuke a fellow Nuke power in retaliation for a Nuclear attack on a non-Nike power.

It is quite easy to find out how many Trident boats are at Faslane. If you want to go low tech, you just turn up and watch. If you want to go hi-tech you can use a satellite picture. When they sail out from Faslane it is a very public operation. In a crisis situation this would be unacceptable.

I think it fair to say this counters your point here.

2 - Agreed, I see no reason why we should not be on cordial terms with China. However, we are talking about a hypothetical scenario here. In the medium term we do not know who will possess the capability to attack us with Nukes. China are one of a number who currently possess that capability, other states such as North Korea and Iran may possess that capability in the future.

Do remember that the UK's foreign policy will be very similar to the US's on certain issues such as N.Korea, Iran.

3 - Of course the Vanguards were not solely responsible for Cold War security. In fact, they came after the end of the Cold War. It is generally acknowledged that Nuclear weapons prevented the Cold War from going hot, and the UK arsenal will have played its role in this regard.

I accept that we have moved on from the Cold War, however the world is arguably more dangerous now than it was 25 years ago.

4 - with Tomahawks, the key is that they can be shot down. The whole point about Trident, and ICBM/SLBM's in general, is that they cannot be stopped. Provided both sides know that, and there is no uncertainty about that fact, stability is maintained. If one side thinks it can attack another and then defend its self from reprisal, there will always be the temptation to strike. In the hands of someone irrational, that is a dangerous combination.

Whilst Cruise Missiles can be "nuclear weapons" they cannot perform the function of a "deterrent".

I have no info on how many Tomahawks have been shot down, but I suspect the answer is greater than 1.

5 - Nuclear weapons are useful with rogue states, as a shield but not a sword. An established state would (or rather should) never launch a first strike on such a state. However, if future dictators sitting in Pyongyang, Tehran or wherever know that their cushy lifestyle can be wiped out in an instant, it will force them to exercise an element of restraint, which can only be a good thing. If they know they could Nuke the UK without our being able to do anything about it, they might use that against us (diplomatically and politically I mean).

6 - yes it is a status symbol. It is proof that we as a nation are prepared to guarantee our territorial integrity. Without this we would not still be considered a major world power.

7 - there is a threat from existing nuke states, because they are capable of attacking us. The relevant question is, are political and military circumstances such that they would chose to use that capability and attack us?

Right now I think the answer to that is no. the two main variables of this are that 1 - there is no reason to attack us, and 2 - we could retaliate. Whilst the circumstances in point 2 are fully under our control, the circumstances in point 1 are not entirely in our control and may be affected by the answer to point 2.

For all these reasons I expect Trident to be renewed.

I think I can see what you are trying to get at, however the arguments as to the relative Merits of Trident as a deterrent have been argued and discussed at length in the highest elements of government. The Trident system comes out on top.

What you need to do is convince myself and others that we will not need a nuclear deterrent in the next 50 years, and that is something you can never prove, only speculate.

Again, if Trident is not renewed it will be for economic reasons only.

Thanks for taking the trouble to respond again. Despite my personal views on the Trident, I expect the Trident and the Vanguards to be updated with a new class of missiles/SSBNs. Just wanted to state my views. Am not trying to convince anyone to agree.

In respect of 1, I think if situations turn sour, I think there will actions to prevent both the low tech and high tech methods indicated.

In respect of 4, there's a difference if Tomahawks were shot down by simple AAA (in which case would be less relevant for nuke-armed versions). I believe any type of nukes are deterrents. Even in the old days of just plain B-52s vs Tupolevs. With tech advances, even ICBMs will become increasingly vulnerable.

No beef with the rest. May not agree but accept it as logical, alternative views.

Weasel there is a bit of psychology to it. If the UK wishes to retain a fair bit of influence at the top table it needs nuclear weapons. If not France has the sole voice in Europe, many here wont accept that.

Which is exactly the reason why I won't rule that out as a factor in a decision to keep the capability. From a political perspective, its as good a reason as any.

 

[deepsixteen]

catching up on stuff on here as lately been otherwise engaged so brief responses, I also believe that the whole trident debate is purely financially driven as does AndrewMI. As previously stated elseware replacing Trident with cruise is not likely to be cheaper and would require breach of international treaty (+ massive cost) to develop new warheads. Not to mention the fact that they are vulnerable to fighters, look at the attrition rate for WW2 V1’s other more relevant data is not so freely available but V1 not much if any slower than modern weapons large numbers of which were dropped by piston engine fighters with no radar. I do understand that cruise has moved on but so have defensive options.
It is a fact that blurring the line between conventionally armed and nuclear armed vessels (as the US has with Ohio SSGN’s) holds its own risk; I would hope to maintain the differential between strategic and conventional. Nuclear tipped cruise would require many more than 4 hulls worth of missiles to overcome even a moderately competent enemy and not having a deterrent at sea means raising the stakes, if you sail during a crisis, even assuming you are not the subject of a first strike.

1805 said 3 boats should still be able to provide for 1 on patrol. I don't think it make sense with the significantly reduced state based nuclear threat, to maintain a 4th boat, when this could mean a significant reduction in conventional capability

True but only if none required full refit/refuel (as three active boats is the minimum) incidentally I think five Polaris boats were considered initially and indeed lots of bits for boat five were procured missile hatches for instance.

Hambo said Build 4 smaller boats, 3 wont work, there has to be one at sea at all time or else its potentially worth the gamble of trying a pre-emptive strike on the sub base. Our borders are so porous, an enemy wouldn’t even need a missile, a weapon could be smuggled in or dropped over the side of a container ship.

Correct no problem with reduced numbers of missiles after all we only carry reduced numbers of warheads at present!! and of course we would never raise the number or use the space for a pac or anything would we. On an operational note cargo boats and target discrete mines are very scary if you are trying to run a three boat program or any kind of program without adequate MCM coverage I suspect the SSBN could cope without the MRA and ASW frigate cover as they are very capable ASW assets themselves.

1805 said I might be wrong but I think when the old R boats were retiring there was a time when we only had 3 active boats.


True, key word is active and this was/is the case whenever a boat was/is in refit.

1805 said I would be happy to tender a French missile against a US, I'm sure we would get a great deal from the French, who must be desperate to mitigate the burden on their own defence budget.

Not for me never considered them suitable allies; expect the feelings mutual (run ashore in Brest fixed this opinion), best to have allies but be prepared to act alone in need and as posted by AndrewMII re point one it really is that easy to watch boats leave and enter Faslane/Coulport and you will be unable to prevent journo’s from reporting on it.

Weasel1962 said In respect of 4, there's a difference if Tomahawks were shot down by simple AAA (in which case would be less relevant for nuke-armed versions). I believe any type of nukes are deterrents. Even in the old days of just plain B-52s vs Tupolevs. With tech advances, even ICBMs will become increasingly vulnerable.

I do not think that the difficulties regarding intercepting SLBM’s are going to be overcome overnight and just like an aircraft an SLBM re-entry body can employ counter measures. I do not understand why you think shooting down nuc armed less relevant?

 

[1805]

catching up on stuff on here as lately been otherwise engaged so brief responses, I also believe that the whole trident debate is purely financially driven as does AndrewMI. As previously stated elseware replacing Trident with cruise is not likely to be cheaper and would require breach of international treaty (+ massive cost) to develop new warheads. Not to mention the fact that they are vulnerable to fighters, look at the attrition rate for WW2 V1’s other more relevant data is not so freely available but V1 not much if any slower than modern weapons large numbers of which were dropped by piston engine fighters with no radar. I do understand that cruise has moved on but so have defensive options.
It is a fact that blurring the line between conventionally armed and nuclear armed vessels (as the US has with Ohio SSGN’s) holds its own risk; I would hope to maintain the differential between strategic and conventional. Nuclear tipped cruise would require many more than 4 hulls worth of missiles to overcome even a moderately competent enemy and not having a deterrent at sea means raising the stakes, if you sail during a crisis, even assuming you are not the subject of a first strike.

1805 said 3 boats should still be able to provide for 1 on patrol. I don't think it make sense with the significantly reduced state based nuclear threat, to maintain a 4th boat, when this could mean a significant reduction in conventional capability

True but only if none required full refit/refuel (as three active boats is the minimum) incidentally I think five Polaris boats were considered initially and indeed lots of bits for boat five were procured missile hatches for instance.

Hambo said Build 4 smaller boats, 3 wont work, there has to be one at sea at all time or else its potentially worth the gamble of trying a pre-emptive strike on the sub base. Our borders are so porous, an enemy wouldn’t even need a missile, a weapon could be smuggled in or dropped over the side of a container ship.

Correct no problem with reduced numbers of missiles after all we only carry reduced numbers of warheads at present!! and of course we would never raise the number or use the space for a pac or anything would we. On an operational note cargo boats and target discrete mines are very scary if you are trying to run a three boat program or any kind of program without adequate MCM coverage I suspect the SSBN could cope without the MRA and ASW frigate cover as they are very capable ASW assets themselves.

1805 said I might be wrong but I think when the old R boats were retiring there was a time when we only had 3 active boats.


True, key word is active and this was/is the case whenever a boat was/is in refit.

1805 said I would be happy to tender a French missile against a US, I'm sure we would get a great deal from the French, who must be desperate to mitigate the burden on their own defence budget.

Not for me never considered them suitable allies; expect the feelings mutual (run ashore in Brest fixed this opinion), best to have allies but be prepared to act alone in need and as posted by AndrewMII re point one it really is that easy to watch boats leave and enter Faslane/Coulport and you will be unable to prevent journo’s from reporting on it.

Weasel1962 said In respect of 4, there's a difference if Tomahawks were shot down by simple AAA (in which case would be less relevant for nuke-armed versions). I believe any type of nukes are deterrents. Even in the old days of just plain B-52s vs Tupolevs. With tech advances, even ICBMs will become increasingly vulnerable.

I do not think that the difficulties regarding intercepting SLBM’s are going to be overcome overnight and just like an aircraft an SLBM re-entry body can employ counter measures. I do not understand why you think shooting down nuc armed less relevant?

Actually most V1s were brought down by radar controlled 3.7" guns, at the end it was down to c100 shells and nearly 80% success rate.

Of course its all about money, it always will be and its time the defence chiefs got a bit more commercial. We can afford excellent defence forces but we can't afford the current level of waste, and because of the waste we will end up cutting through muscle to bone, (unnecessarily) in some places. Would you risk say a reduction to one CVF for the luxuary of a 4th SSBN?

I was assuming 3 boats of 12 silos anyway.

As for the French they are no more or less reliable that the US (remember Suez?). Countries act in their interest, how does it go...."we have no permanent friends just permanent interests". That's why we have an independent nuclear deterrent. Buying it off the French would not make it any less independent, in fact the French seem to care less what happens to weapons they sell than the US.

 

[1805]

Edit Mispost

 

[1805]

1805 said I might be wrong but I think when the old R boats were retiring there was a time when we only had 3 active boats.


True, key word is active and this was/is the case whenever a boat was/is in refit.

I don't think all the other Rs were active, one R had decommissioned for good and the rest were also in a poor state. I am just recalling from memory but I think one even had to sail on a temp nuclear safety certificate?

Which is something to consider when it comes to replacing the Vs.

 

[deepsixteen]

Actually most V1s were brought down by radar controlled 3.7" guns, at the end it was down to c100 shells and nearly 80% success rate.

Yeah but always been amazed that someone in a fighter would go wingtip to wingtip with a bomb and flip it with said wing but the point is how risky relying on TLAM style weapons is.

Of course its all about money, it always will be and its time the defence chiefs got a bit more commercial. We can afford excellent defence forces but we can't afford the current level of waste, and because of the waste we will end up cutting through muscle to bone, (unnecessarily) in some places. Would you risk say a reduction to one CVF for the luxuary of a 4th SSBN?
I was assuming 3 boats of 12 silos anyway.

Twelve eight not really bothered as long as we have them I always do 4s with Missile Tubes. Strangely I would rather have the CVF than the fourth boat but some nifty planning would be required to ensure that the third boat was never more than around 16 weeks shy of being able to sail on patrol or availability is shot. Alternately you do a hot turn around somewhere other than Faslane. It would also have to be a given that the reactor would not require refuel during the lifetime of the boat or you would certainly exceed the 16 week figure. The real question is can you expect/achieve the required level of reliability and can you provide a reactor that will last for the required period with the expectation of a high level of availability?

As for the French they are no more or less reliable that the US (remember Suez?). Countries act in their interest, how does it go...."we have no permanent friends just permanent interests". That's why we have an independent nuclear deterrent. Buying it off the French would not make it any less independent, in fact the French seem to care less what happens to weapons they sell than the US.

Completely agree I’m just a little prejudiced when it comes to the French.

 

[deepsixteen]

I don't think all the other Rs were active, one R had decommissioned for good and the rest were also in a poor state. I am just recalling from memory but I think one even had to sail on a temp nuclear safety certificate?

Which is something to consider when it comes to replacing the Vs.

Not going to go into that much detail regarding revalidation or certification and in any case I missed the final days of the R’s as I was standing by Vanguard but three boat availability is the lowest figure I remember along with the magic 16 weeks and to my mind the early trouser leg saga was much more challenging than the hand off to the V’s.

 

[Chrisious]

Regarding Trident

One obvious point possibly would be the eventual removal of cluster bombs. Will this mark the build up of more conventional weapons such as FOAB and MOAB. If so would it make sense to retain a MLOAB (mother load of all bombs) capability in the form of plutonium warheads or not? An interesting point mentioned is that with only one vessel available at any time, this isn't an apocalyptical weapon delivery system in of itself ( except from a mutual destruction point of view). Theoretically speaking, would one sub load be enough? or would it make sense to drop available warheads where you can put them. Then detonate the rest in situ or in a guaranteed drop zone i.e. on yourself (from a mutual destruction point of view). Generally the present UK administration appears to feel cold war thinking and weaponry is over or obsolete. Although new delivery systems are been developed as we speak and you would think are unlikely to be abandoned quickly.

 

[Systems Adict]

It's been a quiet couple of weeks on here. Has everyone gone on their holidays, or are we just fed up with the usual crud getting churned out from the likes of the Daily Mail ?? uke

Anyways, some GOOD news for Type-45 project....


All news : RN Live : News and Events : Royal Navy



SA

 

[deepsixteen]

It's been a quiet couple of weeks on here. Has everyone gone on their holidays, or are we just fed up with the usual crud getting churned out from the likes of the Daily Mail ?? uke

Anyways, some GOOD news for Type-45 project....


All news : RN Live : News and Events : Royal Navy



SA

Far too much disinformation for my liking at present and thought we should leave the more rabid speculation and fan boy antics to the other boards. Did have a general question regarding the longbow kit would it be possible to reuse on a seventh type 45 post trials? Would this give the RN another escort for reduced cost even if it was perhaps not manned and rotated to maintain usable hull numbers during refits of other vessels? This has sort of been done before I understand.

 

[kev 99]

It's been a quiet couple of weeks on here. Has everyone gone on their holidays, or are we just fed up with the usual crud getting churned out from the likes of the Daily Mail ?? uke

Anyways, some GOOD news for Type-45 project....


All news : RN Live : News and Events : Royal Navy



SA

I voting for the crud.

@deepsixteen I thought the Longbow kit was being recycled into the sixth T45 (Duncan) anyway?

 

[deepsixteen]

I voting for the crud.

@deepsixteen I thought the Longbow kit was being recycled into the sixth T45 (Duncan) anyway?

Hadn’t read that anywhere before or more likely my memory hasn’t retained it.

 

[Systems Adict]

I voting for the crud.

@deepsixteen I thought the Longbow kit was being recycled into the sixth T45 (Duncan) anyway?

My 'Understanding' is that you've hit the nail on the head.

With the sucess of Longbow & live firings planned on Daring or Dauntless, then there'll be no need for the test facility....

SA

 

[kev 99]

My 'Understanding' is that you've hit the nail on the head.

With the sucess of Longbow & live firings planned on Daring or Dauntless, then there'll be no need for the test facility....

SA

Yeah exactly, be a bit bloody stupid to leave valuable kit like that left lying around doing nothing.

 

[windscorpion]

So no carrier share

BBC News - Liam Fox rejects sharing aircraft carriers with France

a shame in some ways, i probably would have got a twisted thrill over FAA aircraft operating off a MN carrier.

 

[kev 99]

Always a non starter, never going to work.

 

[Systems Adict]

So no carrier share

BBC News - Liam Fox rejects sharing aircraft carriers with France

a shame in some ways, i probably would have got a twisted thrill over FAA aircraft operating off a MN carrier.

HURRAH !!!!

At last, a quote from the governement that one would hope will shut The Guardian, the Daily Mail & The Times up !

QEC / CVF stories over quantity, what we're gonna get, wot we're not gonna get, whether we'll cancel them / whether we'll share them / whether we'll actually build them, or build both & sell one to India / Brazil / France.

These papers have been at it for the last 5 years, poo-pooing things to help sell papers / have a poke at the manufacturers / undermine the government & the ships just won't go away !

The best quote I've seen in the last 7 days over this came from a bloke called Steven Carroll, one of the Senior Project Managers on CVF, employed by BAE. Paraphrasing it read something like this...

"When are people gonna realise that the parts have already been purchased, the hulls are being manufacted & the ships are REAL!"

No more put-up or shut up, just SHUT UP !!!

... or how about the media actually getting behind the project, supporting it & getting the public to realise that the whole Military needs the funding & starting a drive to help that, by putting some of THEIR own money up to start it !

Rant over...

SA 4