UK Defence Forum

News, History, Discussions and Debates on UK Defence.

Dreadnought Class SSBN

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
Zero Gravitas
Member
Posts: 63
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:36
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Postby Zero Gravitas » 26 Sep 2017, 13:24

Dahedd wrote:Sharkbait, why is a land based deterrent not a deterrent? Either way it's still a big fuck off missile with a nuclear warhead.


Trident provides a (nearly) guaranteed second strike capability. It deters rational actors from nuking you cos they know you can nuke them back.

Land based does not guarantee second strike. Arguably it encourages a rational actor to nuke you as if they get a first strike in without a response from you then effectively they will have won the war.

The deterrent is the most used of all platforms because it's deterring every hour of every year.

Its job is to provide a credible deterrent and thereby prevent war.

Its job is not to nuke people.

Dahedd
Member
Posts: 441
Joined: 06 May 2015, 11:18

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Postby Dahedd » 26 Sep 2017, 13:26

I'm aware of all the arguments and I'm in favour of the nuke boats. But maybe, just maybe it's time to look at alternatives (God I hate sounding like a Lib Dem)

If Dreadnaught means a further gutting of the conventional navy it isn't worth it.

Foxbat
Member
Posts: 41
Joined: 07 May 2015, 16:51
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Postby Foxbat » 26 Sep 2017, 13:30

Dahedd wrote:I'm aware of all the arguments and I'm in favour of the nuke boats. But maybe, just maybe it's time to look at alternatives (God I hate sounding like a Lib Dem).


That has already been done back in 2013 and came to the conclusion that the current posture was the sweet spot of cost, capability and credibility.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... ves-review

User avatar
Zero Gravitas
Member
Posts: 63
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:36
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Postby Zero Gravitas » 26 Sep 2017, 13:32

What is the point of a multiple billion pound navy when the entire lot could be annihilated by eg a legacy f16 with a ten KT warhead?

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5435
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Postby shark bait » 26 Sep 2017, 13:34

Why is it not worth it? It is a bloody big stick to carry, and safeguards the whole armed forces against the use of Tactical Nukes.

The UK would be much weaker if it didn't spend <10% of its defense budget on Trident.

The problem here is not the Deterrent, it is the unwillingness of government to fund full capabilities.
@LandSharkUK

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 1846
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Postby abc123 » 26 Sep 2017, 14:25

Zero Gravitas wrote:
Dahedd wrote:Sharkbait, why is a land based deterrent not a deterrent? Either way it's still a big fuck off missile with a nuclear warhead.


Trident provides a (nearly) guaranteed second strike capability. It deters rational actors from nuking you cos they know you can nuke them back.

Land based does not guarantee second strike. Arguably it encourages a rational actor to nuke you as if they get a first strike in without a response from you then effectively they will have won the war.

The deterrent is the most used of all platforms because it's deterring every hour of every year.

Its job is to provide a credible deterrent and thereby prevent war.

Its job is not to nuke people
.


X

Or as good old SAC said: "Peace is our profession:"
8-)

https://f4.bcbits.com/img/a2656340649_5.jpg
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2111
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Postby RetroSicotte » 26 Sep 2017, 15:06

Dahedd wrote:I'm aware of all the arguments and I'm in favour of the nuke boats. But maybe, just maybe it's time to look at alternatives (God I hate sounding like a Lib Dem)

If Dreadnaught means a further gutting of the conventional navy it isn't worth it.


Do you think it'd be cheaper to go land based? With what missile? In what facilities? With what trained personnel? With what range? With what survivability measures? Land based silos for ICBMs? Good luck getting that one politically built somewhere in the UK, I'm afraid :p

Dahedd
Member
Posts: 441
Joined: 06 May 2015, 11:18

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Postby Dahedd » 26 Sep 2017, 18:41

I've already stated repeatedly that I'm in favour of the Trident boats. I was just voicing if there was alternative. It sucks that the govt/treasury won't fund the navy (or any of the forces) properly & its crap that Osbourne moved the cost of the Trident boats to the navy from central funding.

At the end of the day they won't fund anything as they should & the public don't give a crap as its just not on their agenda.

cky7
Member
Posts: 105
Joined: 13 Dec 2015, 20:19

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Postby cky7 » 26 Sep 2017, 20:08

shark bait wrote:That's clutching at straws now, the deterrent should definitely be under the MOD budget.


No I agree with jake on that one. Before 2010 it was always paid for outside the defence budget. It was another sneaky move which hid quite how much they were cutting defence (whilst at the same time passing that crappy law enshrining that we waste .7% on the turd world :( ). It's a national, strategic and political asset and not something that ought to be funded by the RN budget.

Take it from the treasury (that tosser would love that lol) or even better the DFID! :D lol

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1909
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Location: Italy
Contact:

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Postby Gabriele » 26 Sep 2017, 21:00

It was "outside the defence budget" in more of a fictional than in a real way. The deterrent hit the navy hard, from the very start. Poseidon was paid for with huge Navy cuts; Trident was to be paid with the Nott cuts.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

User avatar
whitelancer
Member
Posts: 372
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:19
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Postby whitelancer » 26 Sep 2017, 21:35

Even if their was a cheaper alternative, do you really think that any savings would stay in the defence budget?

jedibeeftrix
Member
Posts: 100
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:54

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Postby jedibeeftrix » 26 Sep 2017, 21:46

if we went for a 'cheaper' land/air based deterrent do you think they pay for an extra three SSN's to keep the strategic industry of nuclear boat building alive?

might not end up saving very much...

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 2111
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Postby Lord Jim » 27 Sep 2017, 04:38

If we stick to buying the Dreadnought class our armed forces will comprise of them and SF backed by the TA and airline pilots flying Typhoons part time.

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3297
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Postby Ron5 » 27 Sep 2017, 06:37

Zero Gravitas wrote:What is the point of a multiple billion pound navy when the entire lot could be annihilated by eg a legacy f16 with a ten KT warhead?


How exactly would you manage to get the Navy all in the same spot?? Be like herding cats. And how would you know the submarines were there too?

And if it was a RAF pilot, who would tell him what ships look like? And would they be close enough to his local for him to get home for tea?

Mmmm don't think you've thought this one thru.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5435
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Postby shark bait » 27 Sep 2017, 07:43

cky7 wrote: It's a national, strategic and political asset and not something that ought to be funded by the RN budget.


Often commentators here criticize the government for cooking the MOD's books, now in this instance we're actively encouraging it. See the issue?
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 8747
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 27 Sep 2017, 11:27

Ron5 wrote:How exactly would you manage to get the Navy all in the same spot??

Harking back to the good old times: Scapa Flow, Holy Head... even all of the Home Fleet gathered in Gib (the photos on the walls of the Rock Hotel bar attest to it)
- we did have cruiser sqdrns elsewhere; but with just the T31s left, on their own, don't think many folks would think of them as very scary

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 8747
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 27 Sep 2017, 11:33

shark bait wrote:
cky7 wrote: It's a national, strategic and political asset and not something that ought to be funded by the RN budget.


Often commentators here criticize the government for cooking the MOD's books, now in this instance we're actively encouraging it. See the issue?

Actually, I don't. And even though there was some measure of "cooking" going on, just adhering to NATO definitions does not constitute any such.

The whole NATO burden sharing discussion would much benefit if the UK and France were to account for their deterrent expenditure outside the "NATO formula"
- one could then even call for other contributions "in kind" to shared asset pools, to balance the burden of the two good old "Imperial" nations ;)
- no one ever bothered to calculate the cumulative burden of BAOR and then the British Forces in Germany on our current account; may be it wasn't politically expedient in the day

User avatar
Zero Gravitas
Member
Posts: 63
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:36
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Postby Zero Gravitas » 27 Sep 2017, 21:00

Ron5 wrote:How exactly would you manage to get the Navy all in the same spot??


The usual four step plan:

1. Promise a free bar.
2. Tell them, actually, you don't expect them to come following events last week when they proved what a bantam weight they were after three shandies and a Tia Maria.
3. Tell them Dave is going and he has an Austin Allegro.
4. Tell them Dave likes to wear a dress.

Never fails.

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3297
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Postby Ron5 » 27 Sep 2017, 21:01

The UK Parliamentary Defence Committee criticized the MoD/Treasury severely for "cooking the books".

I don't know who should be happy with the UK government spending less on actual defence then covering that up by transferring items into the defence budget to give the opposite appearance.

It basic dishonesty. Pure and simple. NATO rules have zero to do with it.

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3297
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Postby Ron5 » 27 Sep 2017, 21:02

"Austin Allegro"?? Must be some hidden meaning there.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 2111
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Postby Lord Jim » 27 Sep 2017, 22:08

Its a british thing like squaddies having fancy dress in their kit when on exercise! Was on a training course with six from the Royal signals who had come straight from exercise in the Brecon Beacons and when we went out in to Swindon they produces costumes from out of no where, one had a full Elvis get up!!

jimthelad
Member
Posts: 323
Joined: 14 May 2015, 20:16
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Postby jimthelad » 28 Sep 2017, 17:38

Borat mankini's take up much less space in your bergen :lol:

Sunk at Narvik
Member
Posts: 58
Joined: 28 May 2015, 11:28
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Postby Sunk at Narvik » 29 Sep 2017, 09:25

Royal Signals? Don't get me started. Bugged out in the early hours, they were all in their pyjammas inside their sleeping bags.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 8747
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 13 Jan 2018, 10:40

Lord Jim wrote:Putin seems to have learnt many lessons from the Cold War. He knows that western defence budgets are under major strain and that if he bangs the nuclear drum the west will feel it needs to update its nuclear arsenal draining already limited funds. This is much like the US forcing the USSR to try to match it in the technology race in the 1980s and 90s.


Lord Jim quite rightly continues from there to say that in the case of strategic nuclear weapons, there must be no ambiguity etc...

However, Putin has been banging the drum also about limited nuclear escalation, and it has taken this long for "the West" (in this case the USA) to formulate a response. Here follows a commentary on the leaked policy paper and it does introduce ambiguity, so as to counter brinkmanship moves:
https://breakingdefense.com/2018/01/dra ... i=59959379

How does that relate to us? Well, do we have any such? Or are we totally under the NATO umbrella in this sense? And shouldn't we be, too, as long as we have the independent deterrent.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 8747
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 13 Jan 2018, 10:44

Lord Jim wrote:If we stick to buying the Dreadnought class our armed forces will comprise of them and SF backed by the TA and airline pilots flying Typhoons part time.


Checking back, and relating to yesterday's headlines in the press the above sounds, not like "Belgium with nukes" but "Switzerland, with nukes"


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests

 

 

cron