Yes, to hell with the cost. The deterrent is something we need.
Yes but not sure that we should pay all that money but we do need a deterrent.
Not sure either way after its all a bit dangerous isn't it?!
No way! We should be seen to be disarming and making a safer world.
Yes we need an independent nuclear deterrent, but leasing a new class of ballistic missile submarines from the USA doesn't make economic sense. There are cheaper ways to deliver weapons to target. After all the whole point of nuclear deterrent is the threat that you would use them
Last edited by coco; 15-03-2007 at 07:05 PM.
Renewing our nukes scares the crap out of me. But not renewing them scares me even more.
We won't be leasing the subs, we will be leasing the missile technology. The one thing Britain has always had is the best sub in class, I can't see the MOD wanting to share technology with the USA. We don't even let the USA know how the Vanguard class is built, it would open a huge security hole on how to find/track them. Remember these are supposed to be the underwater varient of a Stealth bomber.Originally Posted by coco
Also I can't see the government taking all that work away from Vickers who have done a stunning job on our previous Ballistic subs.
As for the 'cheaper ways' yes there are, but none so versatile and none that are as hard to track. Remember they can be deployed anywhere in the world and the chances of their location being found by the enemy is highly slim.
there are cheaper ways to deliver nuclear weapons but no cheap and effective ways - the other options are:
Freefall bombs - without a long range stealthy bomber this is not useful - a mid range attack aircraft such as the Tornado is not good enough - unless we are nuking a European country - and the delivery system is vulnerable to interception.
Cruise Missiles - limited range - 1000 miles, so launch systems (submarine, ship) must be relatively close to coastal waters which are more dangerous - submarines cant go into shallow water without leaving a wake on the surface). Also cruise missiles are generally slow - less than Mach1 and can be traced by radar and intercepted by missiles
Ballistic missiles on land - Britain is not big enough, also limited sites due to geological reasons etc
Air launched missiles or bombs are out of the question - we do not have the worldwide network of bases that we would need neither do we have the long range bombers required.
Cruise missiles are too slow, easy to intercept and to detect and their launch platforms are vulnerable - in addition we do not have enough ships to ensure that we have a reasonable amount of coverage around the world
a submarine launched ballistic missile is by far the most credible and safe form of our nuclear deterrent. The vanguards (and US equivalents) are allegedly quieter than the actual ocean (not an exaggeration), they are nearly impossible to detect and can hit targets thousands of miles away very quickly. It is very difficult to intercept a ballistic missile (the interception of scuds is different - Trident comes in higher, faster and has multiple warheads)
As I said before, imo for a credible nuclear deterrent it is trident or nothing - and if a nuclear deterrent is not credible, then it worse than nothing.
I'm annoyed that the answers have been written by someone who clearly thinks that we should get rid of Trident. Having to say 'to hell with the cost' or 'it costs too much' if you want to vote yes is ridiculous. I would have preferred a simple "yes, we need to maintain our defense status." The cost of Trident is irrelevant as it is simply the amount we have to pay to keep nuclear weapons. It's like having a vote on whether to build a hospital or not and saying, 'well, 500 million's a bit steep but I suppose it's worth it,' of course it's worth it, it's there to save people's lives and it can't be done for any less, only if you don't want to save lives and don't want to pay for the hospital would you say that it was too expensive.
Besides, the 'cost' of Trident as it is reported is nonsense. The billions of pounds they talk about in the press is simply the cost of maintaining the fleet and the missiles over the next thirty years. It is in fact the money we are already spending, we're just going to keep on spending it.
Trident is not independant. However, it is not controlled by the Americans, we simply have an agreement not to launch without their consultation. I would expect any country to consult with it's ally's anyway before it actually launched a thermonuclear salvo at an enemy so it's a moot point.
A lot of people argue that we can't use nukes to fight sucide bombers so we shouldn't waste money on them. Unlike these people I don't have a crystal ball so I don't know what's going to happen over the next twenty years so have no way of knowing whether we will need our nuclear deterrent or not. But I will say this:
Trident is an insurance plan. It's better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.
if we have our own it saves us looking for them in other peoples countires....
Well I think the recent fuss about trident is a bit premature.
As regards to have or not to have, I am neutral on the matter, however since the subs can go to about 2024 ( BBC comment) as they are, the money would be better spent else where. If trident gets extend to last till 2050 ( I think that is the correct year) that is a bit presumptious as given the age of it already, in my estimate it will probably be obsolete anyway.
Honour in peace,
A leprichaun talks to me....
most of the money is going on building the submarines, because of penny pinching we built the Vanguards to only last 25-30 years whereas the Americans built theirs to last longer so they arent replacing them - however we need to start designing them now - nuclear submarines are very expensive and take a long time to construct - just think, the present 'Trident' subs (Vanguards) are 16,000tons, houses 135 people, goes 30mph through the water hundreds of feet under the water - all the time being as quiet as the sea itself.
No mean feat
the missiles and warheads are being refurbished as to update them etc so its not going to become obsolete unless a nuclear arms race in the style of the Cold War occurs, in which case defence spending would get closer to what it was then (almost double) and then we could if we wished invest in a newer system. At the moment though (and the foresable future) Trident is the mutts nutts as it were
Not 100% true, yes we did penny pinch a bit but one of the main reasons they aren't meant to last as long is because they would have been out of date by then anyway. The Vanguard is far far more advanced than the Ohio class, just look at the shape of it, there is a lot more unknown about the Vanguard than there is Ohio. Remember the USA scrapped Seawolf when the Vanguard was launched thinking that we would share the technology (and it was already grossly over budget and under performing in most areas).most of the money is going on building the submarines, because of penny pinching we built the Vanguards to only last 25-30 years whereas the Americans built theirs to last longer so they arent replacing them - however we need to start designing them now - nuclear submarines are very expensive and take a long time to construct - just think, the present 'Trident' subs (Vanguards) are 16,000tons, houses 135 people, goes 30mph through the water hundreds of feet under the water - all the time being as quiet as the sea itself.
No mean feat
Remember you can by a plastic scale model kit of an Ohio but not of a Vanguard. There is a reason for this.
afaik the reason for seawolf's cancellation was its massive cost and with the collapse of the USSR it was not needed.
The Vanguard thing is the first I've heard of it - the Vanguard will be more advanced than the Ohios - the Ohio was commissioned 10 years earlier
That is the general concensus but the Vanguard was a large reason. I am lucky enough to have a reasonable knowledge on these vessels and they were in the design stage for a very very long time, using some of the most advanced construction techniques.
Put it this way, it is the only craft to have got through the SOSUS net undetected.
that is quite an achievement!
I will bow to your superior knowledge, my info is largely from publically available information
I assume the astutes are even more advanced?
Problem is that public information on these craft is very limited, for the obvious reasons.
As for the Astute, in some ways yes they are more advanced but in others no, I can't really comment on how they are built but they are a hunter killer and by definition this means they have to be:
A) slippery through water (makes turbulance)
B) Fast (makes noise)
C) Manouverable (causes cavitation)
Hunter Killers are more reliant on their speed and agility than pure silence. Now obviously they will try and make each newer version quieter than before but they cannot afford the luxuries of being slow moving and having a shape that lowers signiture. Something that by nature a Ballistic can have and NEEDS to have.
Problem is that hunter killers are always one step behind, as soon as they work out a way to find a ballistic a new, quieter version is built and luckily, Britain knows how to do it best
dont tell Mr Brown, he'll try to tax it
Britain knows how to do it best
regarding cavitation, I know the RN's newer subs use a pumpjet (which the yanks have followed) - do these produce as much cavitation as standard propellors
I realise that alot about subs are not released - speaking to a friend who is in the RN he has pointed out the released speed and depths of most subs are understated by a fair amount
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
