Dreadnought Class SSBN

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
Tiny Toy
Member
Posts: 271
Joined: 06 May 2015, 09:54

Re: UK's successor submarines

Post by Tiny Toy »

WhitestElephant wrote:I am simply not buying your idea
I see. You believe, as I understand it, that if a nuclear attack occurs then (1) it will be using ICBMs launched from within Russian territory or bombs dropped from heavily escorted Bears, and (2) British intelligence will know about it well in advance anyway. Perhaps they would even declare war on us first. This strikes me as considerably less probable than all the scenarios discussed so far that you've been poking fun at.

I very much doubt that an attack would closely follow the Fourth Protocol script since this is a well understood scenario for the intelligence services. However if an attack happened you can bet your bottom dollar that it would not be possible to definitively assign blame to Russia within the time window for a second strike. They would have to be idiots to let that happen, and they are not idiots.

User avatar
WhitestElephant
Member
Posts: 389
Joined: 06 May 2015, 10:57
United Kingdom

Re: UK's successor submarines

Post by WhitestElephant »

Tiny Toy wrote:I see. You believe, as I understand it, that if a nuclear attack occurs then (1) it will be using ICBMs launched from within Russian territory or bombs dropped from heavily escorted Bears, and (2) British intelligence will know about it well in advance anyway. Perhaps they would even declare war on us first. This strikes me as considerably less probable than all the scenarios discussed so far that you've been poking fun at.

I very much doubt that an attack would closely follow the Fourth Protocol script since this is a well understood scenario for the intelligence services. However if an attack happened you can bet your bottom dollar that it would not be possible to definitively assign blame to Russia within the time window for a second strike. They would have to be idiots to let that happen, and they are not idiots.
If Russia gets to a point where it considers launching a nuclear strike against Britain is in its best national interests, then it stands to reason, relations between Britain and Russia are at an all time low, tensions are at an all time high - and the United States is almost certainly involved. British intelligence could not determine "well in advance" when a nuclear strike is going to happen -I never even said that- but they would absolutely be part of the monitoring process.

Therefore, I believe ICBMs and strategic bombers are indeed the most likely method of Russian delivery. Not only because this is where Russia is devoting most of its military spending, which strongly indicates this is the method they believe they will use. Nor in fact, only because this is what most experts believe also. But because resorting to the underhand methods you suggest, wouldn't even deliver the intended effect anyway (I.e. deniability).

Why do I think this? Well, logic really. If Britain and the West are already locked in nuclear tension with Russia, then any incoming nuclear strike is going to be automatically assumed as being directed from Russia's hand. We will simply ask questions later, that is if we are still around to ask and Russia is around to answer.

I want some clarification on what you meant below.If you weren't referring to a "Fourth Protocol" scenario, then what were you referring too?
Tiny Toy wrote: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.
Though we are not now that strength which in old days moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are. - Lord Tennyson (Ulysses)

Ritchie
Junior Member
Posts: 9
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 18:04
United Kingdom

Re: UK's successor submarines

Post by Ritchie »

Hello everyone, I am new to this site. Just one thing to say, in all the earlier discussion about the response to a Russian tactical nuclear attack one hopes people have not forgotten that the National Deterrent does have a *limited* sub-strategic capability.

User avatar
cockneyjock1974
Member
Posts: 537
Joined: 01 May 2015, 09:43
United Kingdom

Re: UK's successor submarines

Post by cockneyjock1974 »

Ritchie wrote:Hello everyone, I am new to this site. Just one thing to say, in all the earlier discussion about the response to a Russian tactical nuclear attack one hopes people have not forgotten that the National Deterrent does have a *limited* sub-strategic capability.
Welcome aboard Ritchie.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: UK's successor submarines

Post by shark bait »

This summed up the problems with trident renewal rather well

From BBC quoting Ken Livingstone;
He said the defence review would "look at the facts" but added that there were a lot of people who would rather the government spent money on flood defences rather than on upgrading Trident
People only care about the opening story from BBC news on any particular week, not a long term policy that will guarantee security for three decades. Madness, and the strategic defence review co-chairman saying this stuff is even more worrying.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
Engaging Strategy
Member
Posts: 775
Joined: 20 Dec 2015, 13:45
Contact:
United Kingdom

Re: UK's successor submarines

Post by Engaging Strategy »

shark bait wrote:People only care about the opening story from BBC news on any particular week, not a long term policy that will guarantee security for three decades. Madness, and the strategic defence review co-chairman saying this stuff is even more worrying.
Ken Livingstone is a joke, as is the entire Labour pretence of an alternate defence review. The deck's been stacked in favour of unilateral disarmament, the idea that a real debate will take place is laughable. They'll find what Corbyn wants to "trident is too expensive, we're an irrelevant little island, let's spend the money on the NHS/flood defences etc..." Thankfully these people haven't got a snowball's chance in hell of getting into government.
Blog: http://engagingstrategy.blogspot.co.uk
Twitter: @EngageStrategy1

TPC1975
Member
Posts: 11
Joined: 27 May 2015, 09:08
United Kingdom

Re: UK's successor submarines

Post by TPC1975 »

Livingston and Corbyn are convinced the Cold War is no more. I am informed from irrefutable sources that the Russians had not one, not two but six, yes six boats (submarines to the uneducated) in Scottish waters and UK areas of interest in the North Sea over the Christmas and New Year period busy gathering intelligence and attempting to undermine the deterrent. Putin's actions seem to indicate that the Cold War is live and kicking and in our own backyard. An inconvenient truth for our liberal opposition and their defence posture which would not survive first contact with reality let alone the enemy!

User avatar
Dave
Member
Posts: 118
Joined: 02 May 2015, 22:24
United Kingdom

Re: UK's successor submarines

Post by Dave »

cockneyjock1974 wrote:Scotland will not be independent anytime soon or even for generations. The overwhelming majority voted to stay in the UK 10% is a huge margin in politics.
A yes vote in Cameron's forthcoming referendum could cause a rethink by many, or at least another Scot's referendum which could go for independence rather than leaving the EU.

Where Trident is located would then have some issues in that scenario.

User avatar
Pseudo
Senior Member
Posts: 1732
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 21:37
Tuvalu

Re: UK's successor submarines

Post by Pseudo »

Dave wrote:
cockneyjock1974 wrote:Scotland will not be independent anytime soon or even for generations. The overwhelming majority voted to stay in the UK 10% is a huge margin in politics.
A yes vote in Cameron's forthcoming referendum could cause a rethink by many, or at least another Scot's referendum which could go for independence rather than leaving the EU.
Scotland would still leave the EU. Scotland has no membership of the EU outside of the UK's membership. Any declaration of independence by Scotland puts it outside of the EU and means that it would have to apply for membership as a new state, which even if the UK had left the EU Spain still might not be too keen on given Catalonia's desire for independence.

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7930
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

Re: UK's successor submarines

Post by SKB »

The problem with the lefties is that they think we're buying new nuclear missiles and subs. We're not. We're replacing the ageing submarines that carry the missiles, NOT the missiles themselves. Those are good for a few more decades. ;)

User avatar
Pseudo
Senior Member
Posts: 1732
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 21:37
Tuvalu

Re: UK's successor submarines

Post by Pseudo »

SKB wrote:The problem with the lefties is that they think we're buying new nuclear missiles and subs. We're not. We're replacing the ageing submarines that carry the missiles, NOT the missiles themselves. Those are good for a few more decades. ;)
TBH, I think that's more of a general misconception than one that I'd associate with a particular section of the political spectrum. It's certainly a misconception that isn't helped by mainstream media usually talking about "renewing Trident" and not making any distinction between the missiles and the boats.

User avatar
Engaging Strategy
Member
Posts: 775
Joined: 20 Dec 2015, 13:45
Contact:
United Kingdom

Re: UK's successor submarines

Post by Engaging Strategy »

Pseudo wrote:TBH, I think that's more of a general misconception than one that I'd associate with a particular section of the political spectrum. It's certainly a misconception that isn't helped by mainstream media usually talking about "renewing Trident" and not making any distinction between the missiles and the boats.
There was an article in the Independent a while back that talked about replacing the "Trident class submarines" underneath a picture of an Astute. That was the day I stopped buying the independent.
Blog: http://engagingstrategy.blogspot.co.uk
Twitter: @EngageStrategy1

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: UK's successor submarines

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Pseudo wrote: misconception that isn't helped by mainstream media usually talking about "renewing Trident" and not making any distinction between the missiles and the boats.
Without going into politics too much, isn't it intellectual dishonesty to say (report to the wider electorate) that we would spend the money on the boats AND NOT follow it up with the new missiles (which presumably will need new warheads) in the 40's?
- the fact that the two (three) have been separated is down to
1. the sums being whopping even though we are talking about a spend that will be over a half a century or so, when design is included in the total life cycle
2. there is enough fog around the cost of the boats themselves (that I hear have an almost finished design already); remember that extra £10bn that George reserved, without giving any details?
3. the shape that the Trident missiles (their further development) will give them by the 2040s - price therefore unknown
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
Pseudo
Senior Member
Posts: 1732
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 21:37
Tuvalu

Re: UK's successor submarines

Post by Pseudo »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Without going into politics too much, isn't it intellectual dishonesty to say (report to the wider electorate) that we would spend the money on the boats AND NOT follow it up with the new missiles (which presumably will need new warheads) in the 40's?
Yes, it's a dishonest and likely counterproductive to support for they deterrent to give the impression that the boats are the whole system when the missiles will need fairly significant amounts spent on them in the not too distant future. My prediction would be some time in the early 2040's the government announce the funding to take part in the Trident replacement programme, at which point the country collectively asks "Didn't we just spend £100bn on that a few years ago?" which then makes the unilateralist argument of the deterrent being unaffordable sound pretty much on the ball.

User avatar
WhitestElephant
Member
Posts: 389
Joined: 06 May 2015, 10:57
United Kingdom

Re: UK's successor submarines

Post by WhitestElephant »

Dave wrote:
cockneyjock1974 wrote:Scotland will not be independent anytime soon or even for generations. The overwhelming majority voted to stay in the UK 10% is a huge margin in politics.
A yes vote in Cameron's forthcoming referendum could cause a rethink by many, or at least another Scot's referendum which could go for independence rather than leaving the EU.

Where Trident is located would then have some issues in that scenario.
If the UK leaves the EU, so too does Scotland. No doubt this would force a 2nd referendum. But Scotland has to consider this; without the political weight of the UK (I.e England) behind it, the EU would force austerity down its throat. Just look at Ireland and Greece.

It is only because it is in the UK that Scotland can continue with its socialist spending. The Scots need to realise that between the two (UK and EU), only the UK has Scotland's best interests at heart.
Though we are not now that strength which in old days moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are. - Lord Tennyson (Ulysses)

User avatar
Pseudo
Senior Member
Posts: 1732
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 21:37
Tuvalu

Re: UK's successor submarines

Post by Pseudo »

WhitestElephant wrote:
Dave wrote:
cockneyjock1974 wrote:Scotland will not be independent anytime soon or even for generations. The overwhelming majority voted to stay in the UK 10% is a huge margin in politics.
A yes vote in Cameron's forthcoming referendum could cause a rethink by many, or at least another Scot's referendum which could go for independence rather than leaving the EU.

Where Trident is located would then have some issues in that scenario.
If the UK leaves the EU, so too does Scotland. No doubt this would force a 2nd referendum. But Scotland has to consider this; without the political weight of the UK (I.e England) behind it, the EU would force austerity down its throat. Just look at Ireland and Greece.
Scotland would absolutely have to sort out it's fiscal policy because an independent Scotland would be starting life in around £130bn of debt and a budget deficit of around 10% of GDP based on current revenue and spending levels. The EU wouldn't be particularly bothered about the former since it doesn't exceed the 60% debt threshold required by the EU convergence criteria, though it'd be above 50% so that might well change as a result of post-independence capital flight. However, the latter is well outside of the 3% budget deficit limit required for EU membership, so yes, huge cuts to Scottish government spending in the region of over £15bn or around £3,000 per capita would be required to meet the economic criteria for EU membership.

And that's all before we get to the thorny issue of the post-independence Scottish currency and how that might effect the chances of membership.

User avatar
cockneyjock1974
Member
Posts: 537
Joined: 01 May 2015, 09:43
United Kingdom

Re: UK's successor submarines

Post by cockneyjock1974 »

The problem is that approximately 35% of the population would happily be in debt up to their eyeballs, just so they could be independent. The level of pig ignorance with a significant proportion of the Yes voters is beyond belief, it's almost like blind faith. The good news is that the moderates aka former labour voters are swinging back the way, so some of the population are now starting to believe that we had a lucky escape, which we did.

Facts and figures mean nothing to your hardcore independence voter, you should try working beside them, they're still going on about the Tory's and Westminster.

Back on topic, does anybody know if we have a sosus system that tripwires when Ivan comes prowling about.

User avatar
GibMariner
Senior Member
Posts: 1351
Joined: 12 May 2015, 14:17

Re: UK's successor submarines

Post by GibMariner »

If any of those scenarios were to occur, and independent Scotland would find it next to impossible to re-enter the EU as it would require unanimous agreement by the other members to admit it, and at least Spain already stated in clear terms in the run-up to the referendum that they would oppose and veto any moves by an independent Scotland to re-enter the EU so as not to encourage Catalan, Basque or other regional separatism movements - the Scots should consider themselves lucky to live in a modern, democratic country like the UK and are not subjected to the bullying tactics and fascist rhetoric of the Spanish central government and the media they control.

Spain is also the only Western European country to not recognise the independence of Kosovo and has been very lenient towards Russia's annexation and occupation of Crimea and other Ukrainian territories, as they seek international support for their own imperialistic ambitions so it is more than likely that it wasn't just an empty threat to veto Scottish admission to the EU and something they'd seek to pursue if Scotland were to become independent.

However, news like that, or massive public debt, insufficient and declining North Sea oil revenues, loss of jobs from loss of UK government contracts, Faslane, Clyde shipbuilding etc seem to not have penetrated minds of the pig-headed nationalist Scots, who are more concerned about creating a fictional national identity and rave about the "evil Tories" and Westminster instead of worrying about the bankrupt, single-party nationalist-socialist state they would become.

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

Re: UK's successor submarines

Post by RetroSicotte »

cockneyjock1974 wrote:The problem is that approximately 35% of the population would happily be in debt up to their eyeballs, just so they could be independent. The level of pig ignorance with a significant proportion of the Yes voters is beyond belief, it's almost like blind faith. The good news is that the moderates aka former labour voters are swinging back the way, so some of the population are now starting to believe that we had a lucky escape, which we did.

Facts and figures mean nothing to your hardcore independence voter, you should try working beside them, they're still going on about the Tory's and Westminster.

Back on topic, does anybody know if we have a sosus system that tripwires when Ivan comes prowling about.
It makes me very happy to know you're also on this board, CJ. Sometimes when I attempt to describe the unbelievable fanaticism that surrounds the pro-independance part of the country that cold facts completely reflect of I sense that people think I'm exaggerating.

Then someone else like you from another place, not immediately related to me, can confirm the exact same thing. It sums it all up. And it makes for very frustrating social chats at work.

User avatar
Engaging Strategy
Member
Posts: 775
Joined: 20 Dec 2015, 13:45
Contact:
United Kingdom

Re: UK's successor submarines

Post by Engaging Strategy »

cockneyjock1974 wrote:Back on topic, does anybody know if we have a sosus system that tripwires when Ivan comes prowling about.
I believe most of SOSUS was wrapped up in the early 90s, the bits that weren't were rolled into or replaced with the Integrated Undersea Surveillance System (IUSS). I would be very surprised if the UK/RN isn't plugged into that system.
As for UK sovreign monitoring we have the duty towed array patrol ship and MPA coming back online soon for definite. Likely an SSN somewhere in the North Atlantic doing sneaky beaky things as well. Also nobody really knows the full extent of HMS Scott's capabilities, there have been rumours for a long time that she may be "surveying" submarines rather than just the sea bed.
Blog: http://engagingstrategy.blogspot.co.uk
Twitter: @EngageStrategy1

S M H
Member
Posts: 433
Joined: 03 May 2015, 12:59
United Kingdom

Re: UK's successor submarines

Post by S M H »

I lived in Invergordon for ten years I know the mind set of some of the zealot S.N.P. members. But I was flabbergasted by three long time S.N.P. members.That I sill am in contact with told me on a resent visit to Inverness That they voted no to independence. They stated that if Scotland gained independence the Banking and Defence money and in the long term jobs would retrench into the remaining U.K. That the biblical oil revenue was never going to be there. That Scotland would be like the Ireland in the 1950-70s That compares to the receptionist who took my keys when I left Invergordon telling me that" I was one less English bastard" displaying her S.N.P. badge.( I should expect the comment as I remember her at a well known caravan outside a Scottish submarine base).
The new shadow defence sectary and Mr Livingston's labour Trident review is being driven by the same zealot mind set. I doubt Mr Putin would have carried out his shenanigans in Ukraine if they had not given up there nuclear weapons!

User avatar
Cooper
Member
Posts: 347
Joined: 01 May 2015, 08:11
Korea North

Re: UK's successor submarines

Post by Cooper »

cockneyjock1974 wrote:The problem is that approximately 35% of the population would happily be in debt up to their eyeballs, just so they could be independent.
I've come to the conclusion that there are two groups within that 35%, those that have nothing anyway, so threats of cuts mean nothing, and are incredibly gullible to the promises of 'free everything'. Then there are those that think it would never affect them anyway, the left wing middle class professional set, from whom the SNP gets the majority of MSP's & MP's from, who think if it all did go tits up they can take their skills elsewhere, just like the large numbers of Irish who leave the country when the economy collapses.

..it's the second group that are the most dangerous, they know full well what the SNP are selling is a complete lie but choose to look the other way because they have options not open to the first group, that and the fact they are the real 'English haters' in Scotland once you scrape past the veneer of middle class respectability.

User avatar
cockneyjock1974
Member
Posts: 537
Joined: 01 May 2015, 09:43
United Kingdom

Re: UK's successor submarines

Post by cockneyjock1974 »

Really enjoying the comments folks, glad I'm not the only pro UK poster in town.

User avatar
Engaging Strategy
Member
Posts: 775
Joined: 20 Dec 2015, 13:45
Contact:
United Kingdom

Re: UK's successor submarines

Post by Engaging Strategy »

cockneyjock1974 wrote:Really enjoying the comments folks, glad I'm not the only pro UK poster in town.
Have you read my blog? :lol:
Blog: http://engagingstrategy.blogspot.co.uk
Twitter: @EngageStrategy1

~UNiOnJaCk~
Member
Posts: 780
Joined: 03 May 2015, 16:19
United Kingdom

Re: UK's successor submarines

Post by ~UNiOnJaCk~ »

cockneyjock1974 wrote:Really enjoying the comments folks, glad I'm not the only pro UK poster in town.
It's widely shared, mate. The duplicitous idiocy of large swathes of the pro-independence movement can even be readily seen all the way down here in the evil heartland of the English regime...err, i mean, the South East.

I love Scotland, and i love its people - i really do, i think it's a fantastic place; but by god the delusion of the pro-independence crowd is so thick you could cut it with a knife and i can't say that last year hasn't been the cause of some bad blood being spilt. I hold the SNP and co. as mainly responsible for that.

Post Reply