Dreadnought Class SSBN

[Ron5]

As a manufacturer, if I spotted the 50% share of underspends in any contract, I would immediately make sure there were zero underspends.

[shark bait]

Made this a little while ago when discussing the prospect of an extra astute (which I think is impossible btw)

Any way it shows how the new build schedule will look, minus the fantasy astutes. Hope it makes sense.

[jonas]

Nice graph and you have obviously put some thouht into it, but as you yourself say it really is a fantasy. So discounting the fact that Astute 8 and 9 are not planned, what fills the gap between 2024 and 2030.

It is once more a complete shambles, have we not learned out lessons from the last gapping in submarine production. We lost design know how, the skilled workers had moved elsewhere and the whole programme was in danger of collapse. Only because we went cap in hand to the US, and the Electric Boat Company got us back on track has this project succeeded.

So what happens now. Some answers would be appreciated from the government. I am not interested in pure speculation, we can all come up with our own idea's, some quite obvious ones, but I do hope the MOD have some definate proposals in place so we don't make another complete cock up again,please.

[Ron5]

Made this a little while ago when discussing the prospect of an extra astute (which I think is impossible btw)

Boo. Hoping for another Astute to protect the carriers.

[SKB]

7 Astutes is such an odd number - literally. Why 7? You can't pair odd numbers. Why not 6 or 8 Astutes?

[arfah]

.....................

[shark bait]

The plan for 7 is 3 in port, 4 available.

The next bit is guessing;
I would assume that means 2 on a long distance deployment, east of Suez and another somewhere doing secret stuff. Other 2 either in transit or close to the UK.

[The Armchair Soldier]

The plan for 7 is 3 in port, 4 available.

It must teeter on 5 available at times because the French manage 4 available even though they have 1 less SSN than us.

[shark bait]

It must teeter on 5 available at times because the French manage 4 available even though they have 1 less SSN than us.

Didn't know that, thanks. Perhaps I will adjust my guess.

2 abroad
2 close to home
0.5 in transit

[rec]

I would prefer Trident not to be replaced at all, and the money used elsewhere in Defence. If you are really desperate for a Nuclear Detternet, why not 4 additional Astutes with space for vertical Launched Cruise missles, and F35C for RAF for free fall bombs. Cheaper, flexible. and controversal.

[~UNiOnJaCk~]

I would prefer Trident not to be replaced at all, and the money used elsewhere in Defence. If you are really desperate for a Nuclear Detternet, why not 4 additional Astutes with space for vertical Launched Cruise missles, and F35C for RAF for free fall bombs. Cheaper, flexible. and controversal.

You can also add to your list: Less survivable, less deterrent, less security and less influence.

[rec]

But by 2030, with the advent of drones etc, will it be wise if you want a nuclear detterentnto have all your eggs in one basket??? And if Trident is such a drain on the rest conventional forces, how much more vulonerable and how much less influence will we have by having weak conventional forces?

[WhitestElephant]

But by 2030, with the advent of drones etc, will it be wise if you want a nuclear detterentnto have all your eggs in one basket??? And if Trident is such a drain on the rest conventional forces, how much more vulonerable and how much less influence will we have by having weak conventional forces?

Why would the proliferation of drones be a detriment to deterrent? As for the "all your eggs" statement; isn't that the whole point of CASD, it being the most survivable deterrent option? So I fail to see how your argument applies here.

Is Trident really the drain everyone says it is? I suppose we will find out for sure in the late 2020s to mid 2030s, when Successor costs are predicted to consume 20-30% of the defence procurement budget. But until now, it has been a lack of committed funding and a poorly managed MoD that has run down the armed forces, not Trident.

Our conventional forces are also anything but weak, this is unlikely to change.

A balance between a credible nuclear deterrent and a medium sized conventional military, that is expeditionary, and able to operate at the highest intensity seamlessly beside the Americans is what affords the United Kingdom influence, prestige and global reach.

[shark bait]

CASD is the only safe basket to put your eggs in. All other method's have holes in them.

I don't support the notion it makes the rest of our forces weak either, rather it makes them stronger. Any peer on peer war could so easily go nuclear, and if we lacked the capability we could easily be destroyed, weak. Having them means we could easily destroy others, strong.

[rec]

I understand that argument, but with mass movement of people caused by global warming and war, with rogue states and terrorist groups (who wont be deterrred by CASD), we are vulnerable in other ways, which have a more immediate impact on the UK population both short and long term. We have no defence against a one off ballastic missile, and all 3 of our armed services have weaknesses in capability. The threats are multiple and complex we are no longer in an easy to define world Russia vereses the West. Also the ramifications of using nuclear weapons is immense, and we would need another word rather than 'collateral damage' to describe the mass carnage beyond the military target.. On conventional forces; Our SSN force is too small for one, The Challenger Tank is obsolete, and the RAF do not deploy modern AA missle defences like Israel for example. The weaker our conventional forces, the sooner we fall back on using nuclear weapons as the only way to win a state on state conflict. We have to disagree on this one, I am not in favor of us having nuclear weapons, but understand the arguments of those who are. I am happy to accept a minimal nuclear detterent using platforms that also have a non nuclear role, hence the SSN launced cruise missle and F35C bombs.

[Engaging Strategy]

The weaker our conventional forces, the sooner we fall back on using nuclear weapons as the only way to win a state on state conflict. We have to disagree on this one, I am not in favor of us having nuclear weapons, but understand the arguments of those who are. I am happy to accept a minimal nuclear deterrent using platforms that also have a non nuclear role, hence the SSN launced cruise missle and F35C bombs.

In a serious state on state conflict the UK will fight alongside its allies, as it has always done historically. Despite what some would have you think NATO still massively over-matches Russia in its ability to fight a conventional war. The position and readiness of NATO units are the issue, not their strength or weakness. Using platforms with a "non-nuclear role" for deterrence doesn't work, SSNs, F-35C and carriers exist to project power and fight. By engaging in military activities they reveal their position and make themselves vulnerable to counterattack. SSBNs are there to hide, they're an unknown factor. The UK CASD submarine could be in the middle of the N.Atlantic or in the South China Sea the whole point is that nobody knows where they are, so locating and destroying them will be very difficult. SSBNs provide assured second strike capability, the other options you have listed don't.

[shark bait]

terrorist groups (who wont be deterrred by CASD)

I hate this argument, often repeated throughout the media and is just the most illogical, ill though out case.
It is not the point CASD to deter terrorists. Just like our 10 drones aren't there to deter nuclear blackmail.

[WhitestElephant]

terrorist groups (who wont be deterrred by CASD)

I hate this argument, often repeated throughout the media and is just the most illogical, ill though out case.
It is not the point CASD to deter terrorists. Just like our 10 drones aren't there to deter nuclear blackmail.

When people criticise a weapon, because it cannot do a job it was never designed or indented to do, it is a sure sign they have no valid argument.

The SNP also say trident is a political weapon, being no more than an ego trip. I agree with he former, it is a political weapon, but not in the sense the SNP are trying to imply. Trident as a political weapon affords the UK influence to shape the global security scene, in turn, protecting UK interests and keeping our nation safe. Trident as a political weapon, enables the UK to discourage military powers far greater than ourselves, in turn, protecting UK interests, keeping our nation safe and preventing war. So yes, Trident very much is a political and diplomatic weapon.

But no, a political weapon in the SNPs eyes is one where Tory politicians can saunter about the world stage feeling tough and important. What an utterly childish argument.

[rec]

I am not saying that Trident fails because it can't deter Terrorists, I am saying that it's a complex and multifaceted range of security issues and for various reasons I dont think Trident is an effective way to spend a large chunk of our defence budget. I am saying that a nuclear deterrent is not our ultimate security, in fact quite often nations disinetergrate from the inside out, which to some extent is what the UK is doing. It's what Rome did and its the inside our disintergrating that makes a nation week.

[WhitestElephant]

I am not saying that Trident fails because it can't deter Terrorists, I am saying that it's a complex and multifaceted range of security issues and for various reasons I dont think Trident is an effective way to spend a large chunk of our defence budget. I am saying that a nuclear deterrent is not our ultimate security, in fact quite often nations disinetergrate from the inside out, which to some extent is what the UK is doing. It's what Rome did and its the inside our disintergrating that makes a nation week.

Trident is our ultimate security against peer state on state conflict. It is the difference between the UK becoming the next Vichy France or maintaining our sovereignty and freedom of action. It is the difference between a threat of nuclear annihilation or deterring said threat... and in the worlds darkest of moments, even if the British state is annihilated, Trident will be our last act as a nation, our last Huzzah... as ugly as it may be.

Is the UK disintegrating from the inside out? Possibly, but we still find ourselves one of the best run democracies on the planet. Most of us just don't know how good we've got it frankly. Would cutting Trident and saving £100 billion over 40 years do anything to change this? Not at all, an unnoticed drop in the ocean.

[Pseudo]

Anything less than CASD leads to the deterrent potentially escalating conflict rather than deterring it simply through its deployment.

[shark bait]

Would cutting Trident and saving £100 billion over 40 years do anything to change this?

Works out to be somewhere between 4-6% of defence spending over that period. Sure that could be used to fix some of the holes in our conventional forces, but spent that way the effect wouldn't be as profound, politically or militarily, as CASD.

[ArmChairCivvy]

In a serious state on state conflict the UK will fight alongside its allies, as it has always done historically. Despite what some would have you think NATO still massively over-matches Russia in its ability to fight a conventional war. The position and readiness of NATO units are the issue, not their strength or weakness

All of that agreed . Then we come to the NATO "in area" - most of its history - and out of area, now getting de-emphasized. Let's take the mirror, and try to look into it:
A) That overmatch mentioned above is so great that Russia has not got resources to get anywhere near, in the long run. Hence the reoccurring talk of tactical nukes.
B) In monetary terms renewing the nuclear arsenal is the cheapest and also the quickest (esp. when no one exc. China, within the major powers, has done much for decades)
C) Just like the One Child Policy in China (only now ended, officially), there are domestic political reasons to why a massive confrontation using conventional forces (with the casualties that go with it, considering the lethality of weapons both/ all sides would be fielding) is a "no-goer".
- Get the pain threshold for this by comparing the Afghanistan and Ukraine campaigns' casualties - both were kept quiet, but the trickle of news gets aggregated somewhere, and then passed on, finally reaching the general populace).
D) In this "game of chess" strategic nuclear weapons are not on the board
E) Putin and his close circle think that the new version of "brinkmanship" will give them an upper hand, with enough times of " repeat and rinse", when they are dealing with the the consensus-oriented West (which for that reason will always be slower) or, for that matter, China, which is abiding its time, to build its strength
- the current trade & macro-economics outlook might add a decade to that calculation, but where does that figure on a time-line that they see as 3 thousand years - and the last 100+ years being just a a random outlier error on the that time line or trend.

[Cooper]

£100 billion over 40yrs...bargain

It will cost the rUK taxpayer nearly £360 billion to subsidise Scotland, where the subs will be based, over the same time period at current rates, currently they're spending £9billion a year more than they raise in taxes, and that shortfall is met by the rest of us.

If Scotland did us all a favour and buggered off, because lets face it, at best they're reluctant, resentful members of the UK and at worst downright hostile to the UK, we wouldn't have to pay that subsidy, use £20 billion of it on a new Sub base somewhere else in the UK, and still have £340 billion in change.

..£340 billion to spend, imagine it.

[Tiny Toy]

Agreed that drone warfare or terrorism is irrelevant to this discussion. However, one aspect of nuclear deterrence that has not been seriously discussed is the emergence of Putin-style hybrid warfare (since Russia is basically the only realistic state that we have our nuclear deterrent to deter). In such a case, if Russia launched a nuclear offensive against us, it would be engineered so as to be completely deniable - for instance, they would say that some of their missiles had been stolen by a naughty unidentifiable and untrackable third party, then suddenly out of nowhere we get armageddon on British soil. Or a number of other scenarios that don't clearly put Russia (or any sovereign state, for that matter) in the picture for second-strike retaliation. Clearly the current solution cannot deter against such a threat, even though it is by far the most probable state-on-state strategy that would be employed in the modern age. Certainly the Putin regime is not going to be stopped by it.