Page 21 of 29

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Posted: 26 Sep 2017, 13:24
by Zero Gravitas
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.

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Posted: 26 Sep 2017, 13:26
by Dahedd
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.

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Posted: 26 Sep 2017, 13:30
by Foxbat
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

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Posted: 26 Sep 2017, 13:32
by Zero Gravitas
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?

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Posted: 26 Sep 2017, 13:34
by shark bait
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.

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Posted: 26 Sep 2017, 14:25
by abc123
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

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Posted: 26 Sep 2017, 15:06
by RetroSicotte
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

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Posted: 26 Sep 2017, 18:41
by Dahedd
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.

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Posted: 26 Sep 2017, 20:08
by cky7
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

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Posted: 26 Sep 2017, 21:00
by Gabriele
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.

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Posted: 26 Sep 2017, 21:35
by whitelancer
Even if their was a cheaper alternative, do you really think that any savings would stay in the defence budget?

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Posted: 26 Sep 2017, 21:46
by jedibeeftrix
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...

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Posted: 27 Sep 2017, 04:38
by Lord Jim
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.

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Posted: 27 Sep 2017, 06:37
by Ron5
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.

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Posted: 27 Sep 2017, 07:43
by shark bait
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?

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Posted: 27 Sep 2017, 11:27
by ArmChairCivvy
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

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Posted: 27 Sep 2017, 11:33
by ArmChairCivvy
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

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Posted: 27 Sep 2017, 21:00
by Zero Gravitas
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.

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Posted: 27 Sep 2017, 21:01
by Ron5
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.

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Posted: 27 Sep 2017, 21:02
by Ron5
"Austin Allegro"?? Must be some hidden meaning there.

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Posted: 27 Sep 2017, 22:08
by Lord Jim
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!!

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Posted: 28 Sep 2017, 17:38
by jimthelad
Borat mankini's take up much less space in your bergen :lol:

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Posted: 29 Sep 2017, 09:25
by Sunk at Narvik
Royal Signals? Don't get me started. Bugged out in the early hours, they were all in their pyjammas inside their sleeping bags.

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Posted: 13 Jan 2018, 10:40
by ArmChairCivvy
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.

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Posted: 13 Jan 2018, 10:44
by ArmChairCivvy
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"