Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
interestrateripoff

Uk Plans To Cut Trident Fleet In Nuclear Overture

Recommended Posts

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/poli...icle6845247.ece

Gordon Brown is preparing to surrender one of Britain’s four Trident submarines to help to cut nuclear arsenals around the world.

The number and power of Britain’s 160 warheads could also be reduced.

The Prime Minister will insist that scaling back the Trident fleet when the current programme is replaced has nothing to do with the economy but is instead part of efforts led by President Obama to slash nuclear stockpiles and force countries such as Iran to abandon efforts to build atomic weapons.

It means that the future of Britain’s independent nuclear deterrent is in doubt whoever wins the next election.

So who thinks this is GB doing his bit for peace or more the fact the tw@ has run out of money and is now dressing up a cut as a noble act of someone who wishes peace?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But then do we want the EU to have no nuclear weapons?

Never really understood the whole MAD thing.

Why don't we just scrap them in the UK, but not tell anyone we have done it?

Why not say we are going to treble the number we have, without actually doing it?

Why not treble what we have, but not say anything about it?

I mean, who the hell would ever know?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw that as breaking news on Sky yesterday and like anyone with even the slightest common sense can see - it's a cut to save billions spun as a "I saved the world from oblivion" gesture.

They clearly think the public are very, very stupid.

but wow this one is so obvious a child in a buggy can see through it.

Edited by loginandtonic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Never really understood the whole MAD thing.

Why don't we just scrap them in the UK, but not tell anyone we have done it?

Why not say we are going to treble the number we have, without actually doing it?

Why not treble what we have, but not say anything about it?

I mean, who the hell would ever know?

The submarine crews who go to sea with them and the technicians that maintain them in Faslane!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought the whole point of having 4 subs was that it was the minimum credible detterent. I'm sure I remember that being cited as the reason. Something to do with 1 being in port, 1 being refitted and two being out at any one time.

If we can maintain a minimum credible detterent with 3 subs then someones been telling porkies.

I support Trident and it's successor because nuclear weapons aren't the kind of thing you can decide to have on a short term basis. It can take 10 years or so to implement something like Trident. That's a long time to be held to ransom by a nuclear madman and a very long time to wait if you decide you need it quickly after all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I thought the whole point of having 4 subs was that it was the minimum credible detterent. I'm sure I remember that being cited as the reason. Something to do with 1 being in port, 1 being refitted and two being out at any one time.

If we can maintain a minimum credible detterent with 3 subs then someones been telling porkies.

I support Trident and it's successor because nuclear weapons aren't the kind of thing you can decide to have on a short term basis. It can take 10 years or so to implement something like Trident. That's a long time to be held to ransom by a nuclear madman and a very long time to wait if you decide you need it quickly after all.

We cannot maintain a deterrent with 3 boats one is always at sea, one in refit, one on preparation and one for the redundancy factor. It's also a question of keeping the highly trained crews on standby and close to the boats.

When the boats come in the missiles are removed into storage, this alone is quite a laborious task as they too have to be inspected and maintained.

UK Nuclear Weapons

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The submarine crews who go to sea with them and the technicians that maintain them in Faslane!!

Well yes, but they are on our side aren't they?!?

How would our "enemies" know?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We cannot maintain a deterrent with 3 boats one is always at sea, one in refit, one on preparation and one for the redundancy factor. It's also a question of keeping the highly trained crews on standby and close to the boats.

When the boats come in the missiles are removed into storage, this alone is quite a laborious task as they too have to be inspected and maintained.

UK Nuclear Weapons

Sorry to raise this thread again after 3 weeks but I had a thought this morning, having read the defence procurement report by Bernard Gray.

If we need 4 SSBN subs as a minimum - one out, one returning, one in refit and one for training then why doesn't the RN need 4 large carriers too?

Surely the same principle applies? We're planning to have just 2 - so that's er one on patrol and one in refit/training/sailing to replace the one that's on station. How does that work then?

Conventional wisdom also says that carriers should patrol in pairs in case one gets disabled the other can land the planes back (and the F-35 ones are going to cost about $100m each so don't really want to lose 2,4 or 6 because there's nowhere to land that afternoon!).

On that basis we need probably 6 large carriers - 2 on station, 2 to replace them and 2 training/refitting.

Anyone find the money for this in the current budget?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.timesonli...icle6845247.ece

So who thinks this is GB doing his bit for peace or more the fact the tw@ has run out of money and is now dressing up a cut as a noble act of someone who wishes peace?

we will soon be the armed forces of Europe anyway

all marching under 1 uniform

and all being ordered by one master the Us of A

we dont need nukes all we need is to let the US base theirs here

they have plenty to spare

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a bit different as it is a lot simpler to get people on and off carriers when they are mobile. We have got along quite nicely with three. Two is nuts, and reducing the subs is also nuts unless you remove them altogether.

The SDR was nuts and based on less operations than are currently being asked of the forces. No wonder there are defence over-spends and under-equiped troops. This all gets blamed on poor defence procurement (something the smart acquisition initiative was supposed to address).

Whilst the cabinet and GB asks for more from defence whilst simultaneously cutting funding we are a laughing stock.

Si

Sorry to raise this thread again after 3 weeks but I had a thought this morning, having read the defence procurement report by Bernard Gray.

If we need 4 SSBN subs as a minimum - one out, one returning, one in refit and one for training then why doesn't the RN need 4 large carriers too?

Surely the same principle applies? We're planning to have just 2 - so that's er one on patrol and one in refit/training/sailing to replace the one that's on station. How does that work then?

Conventional wisdom also says that carriers should patrol in pairs in case one gets disabled the other can land the planes back (and the F-35 ones are going to cost about $100m each so don't really want to lose 2,4 or 6 because there's nowhere to land that afternoon!).

On that basis we need probably 6 large carriers - 2 on station, 2 to replace them and 2 training/refitting.

Anyone find the money for this in the current budget?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to raise this thread again after 3 weeks but I had a thought this morning, having read the defence procurement report by Bernard Gray.

If we need 4 SSBN subs as a minimum - one out, one returning, one in refit and one for training then why doesn't the RN need 4 large carriers too?

Surely the same principle applies? We're planning to have just 2 - so that's er one on patrol and one in refit/training/sailing to replace the one that's on station. How does that work then?

Conventional wisdom also says that carriers should patrol in pairs in case one gets disabled the other can land the planes back (and the F-35 ones are going to cost about $100m each so don't really want to lose 2,4 or 6 because there's nowhere to land that afternoon!).

On that basis we need probably 6 large carriers - 2 on station, 2 to replace them and 2 training/refitting.

Anyone find the money for this in the current budget?

I don't think it is the same principle. In the Cold War you needed the capability to respond to a first strike by the Soviet Union and therefore you needed an undetectable platform that could launch at a moment's notive - hence the need for a boat at sea far from base all the time.

Edit: Young Goat puts it better and beat me to it.

Edited by bearwithasorehead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I heard, in line with front line costs savings, they are having the subs refitted with 5 star luxury Offices, dismissing the crew to the dole and installing 3000 MOD staff in each one....as the sub can only accomodate 20 such luxury offices, the MOD bods are being asked to do a 300 week rota job share, on full pay, ie 1 week on duty, 290 weeks gardening leave.

this saves the £20m wages costs of the crew.

makes sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we need 4 SSBN subs as a minimum - one out, one returning, one in refit and one for training then why doesn't the RN need 4 large carriers too?

Surely the same principle applies? We're planning to have just 2 - so that's er one on patrol and one in refit/training/sailing to replace the one that's on station. How does that work then?

Conventional wisdom also says that carriers should patrol in pairs in case one gets disabled the other can land the planes back (and the F-35 ones are going to cost about $100m each so don't really want to lose 2,4 or 6 because there's nowhere to land that afternoon!).

On that basis we need probably 6 large carriers - 2 on station, 2 to replace them and 2 training/refitting.

I think the argument is that you need to have 100% coverage by the SSBNs otherwise the deterent isn't effective (since Moscow could simply attack when there isn't a boat on station) wheras with the carriers you can simply sail where you want to go, blow some stuff up then sail home again.

The F35 is planned to be a vertical landing aircraft so the need for them to operate in pairs is less pressing, since unless the ship actually sinks they should be able to find somewhere to land. I don't think even the US operate their carriers in pairs and they are conventional flat tops.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You heard incorrectly, the new offices are for the "director of strategic diversity and inclusivity" and their staff required under new EU laws since the op tour of duty is 6-months without being able to access such vital resources. To house these we have had to remove the sonar systems, guidance systems and weapons. Since H&S required that the minimum ceiling height for civil servant offices are 8ft - one deck has to be removed from the 6ft5 decks to accommodate this. As a result, the weakened hull can only dive to a depth of 10ft without loosing structural integrity.

I heard, in line with front line costs savings, they are having the subs refitted with 5 star luxury Offices, dismissing the crew to the dole and installing 3000 MOD staff in each one....as the sub can only accomodate 20 such luxury offices, the MOD bods are being asked to do a 300 week rota job share, on full pay, ie 1 week on duty, 290 weeks gardening leave.

Edited by Si_

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You heard incorrectly, the new offices are for the "director of strategic diversity and inclusivity" and their staff required under new EU laws since the op tour of duty is 6-months without being able to access such vital resources. To house these we have had to remove the sonar systems, guidance systems and weapons. Since H&S required that the minimum ceiling height for civil servant offices are 8ft - one deck has to be removed from the 6ft5 decks to accommodate this. As a result, the weakened hull can only dive to a depth of 10ft without loosing structural integrity.

So it's going better than most projects then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You heard incorrectly, the new offices are for the "director of strategic diversity and inclusivity" and their staff required under new EU laws since the op tour of duty is 6-months without being able to access such vital resources. To house these we have had to remove the sonar systems, guidance systems and weapons. Since H&S required that the minimum ceiling height for civil servant offices are 8ft - one deck has to be removed from the 6ft5 decks to accommodate this. As a result, the weakened hull can only dive to a depth of 10ft without loosing structural integrity.

wont be a dive...5 star luxury offices was in the spec.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never really understood the whole MAD thing.

Why don't we just scrap them in the UK, but not tell anyone we have done it?

Why not say we are going to treble the number we have, without actually doing it?

Why not treble what we have, but not say anything about it?

I mean, who the hell would ever know?

True its like China, nobody knows how many they have and the estimates of them vary widely , they hint at it but never reveal how many they have. and people guess at less than 100.

During the cold war we used to stick dummy warheads ontop of our missiles to defeat the Moscow ABM system.

Infact this sounds like time for a joke. from red dwarf

NEWSREADER: So great is the appeal of "Better Than Life" when one store

in New Tokyo ran out of stocks rubber nuclear weapons had to be deployed to disperse the crowd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it is the same principle. In the Cold War you needed the capability to respond to a first strike by the Soviet Union and therefore you needed an undetectable platform that could launch at a moment's notive - hence the need for a boat at sea far from base all the time.

Edit: Young Goat puts it better and beat me to it.

so why not just keep them out on longer patrols? say 6 months , give them more nuclear fuel rods , and freeze dry the food so you can cram more food onboard , and replace the toilets with japanese ones so there is no need for toilet paper (I know a bloke who had to clean out the septic tanks of subs) and you can keep them on patrol for months and months at a time.

If you use proper written software rather than say windows , solid state drives and as few moving parts as possible you don;t even have to go in to port for maintenance as often.

In that if the army has manpower shortages they lengthen the watches, you can do the same , effectively you only need two subs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   291 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.