tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post2205878146178592649..comments2024-02-29T11:45:01.870+01:00Comments on UK Armed Forces Commentary: A good alternative to SSBNs...? Gabrielehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01623558391676151582noreply@blogger.comBlogger36125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-82010242808160562812015-03-02T22:22:45.934+01:002015-03-02T22:22:45.934+01:00Fylingdales is part of the US warning net, but is ...Fylingdales is part of the US warning net, but is and remains british first of all. Ground based early warning is covered. Space based surveillance via US. Gabrielehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01623558391676151582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-56675313419901725102015-03-02T22:03:23.425+01:002015-03-02T22:03:23.425+01:00Aside from the nuke and delivery system, to what d...Aside from the nuke and delivery system, to what degree does UK nuclear command and control depends on US providing early warning? UK has no space based missile warning assets, nor does she has ground based long range radars. Then how does she knows when/if she is under attack from a hostile nation? Joe123https://www.blogger.com/profile/10128982137368716954noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-31805543526191484512015-03-02T21:54:54.010+01:002015-03-02T21:54:54.010+01:001) Not practical. USN has NO spare boomers to leas...1) Not practical. USN has NO spare boomers to lease. <br />2) Where does your nuclear capable cruise missile from? What about the warhead carried by the cruise missile? Lastly, cruise missile is more vulnerable to intercept then ballistic missile. Joe123https://www.blogger.com/profile/10128982137368716954noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-32670640114605458342015-02-26T11:44:54.919+01:002015-02-26T11:44:54.919+01:00I am not a military expert but am well able to mak...I am not a military expert but am well able to make decisions. If I were also a megalomaniac dictator, I would not take the risk of triggering a Trident response, but I would against this proposal if my military experts had a plan to overcome it. So it HORRIFIES me!<br /><br />Either we have a proper, credible deterrent or not at all.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-18518975041285282532015-02-26T08:03:55.972+01:002015-02-26T08:03:55.972+01:00There are numerous practical problems with an air-...There are numerous practical problems with an air-based nuclear deterrent. <br /><br />Supposing the aircraft were stationed at overseas British bases, then I assume that if an aggressor nation were capable of launching a full scale nuclear attack or invasion against Britain, then they would also be more than capable of destroying a small, static military base, in somewhere like Cyprus or Gibraltar. <br /><br />If the aircraft were carrier-based, then that means that a CBG would have to always be in the vicinity of the hostile country. I'm doubtful that the RN will be able to always have at least one carrier at high readiness, let alone always having one off the coast of every country that might feasibly attack Britain. That's all very well if we have prior knowledge of the attack, but it would not constitute a continuous nuclear deterrent. Of course this would also be a huge drain on the RN's conventional carrier capabilities, if they are expected to be dual purpose. And again, a carrier is effectively a static target for the enemy. You also have to remember that many regions, countries and ports have a ban on nuclear weapons.<br /><br />Something else that occurs to me is the human element of the nuclear deterrent. The current system is deliberately designed so that the Vanguard crew are not aware of the location of their target. Is it plausible that a pilot would be prepared to single-handedly drop a nuclear bomb on a city, killing millions of men, women and children? That's assuming of course that the aircraft manage to get anywhere near their target before being shot down.<br /><br />Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13988964718334659830noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-9263287942516604202015-02-24T03:59:55.058+01:002015-02-24T03:59:55.058+01:00Where as it'd be nice to have more Astute boat...Where as it'd be nice to have more Astute boats and T26's, I don't think anything can really replace the trident-style system.<br /><br />There is little point in the suggested alternative. It's easily countered and relies on the incompetence of our enemies to work.<br /><br />Quite honestly I have no idea where this 30 million figure comes from for 4 submarines. If they're re-using astute systems and re-using the missiles, where on earth is that extra cost coming from? I don't think anyone expects it to be cheap but 30bn is an outrageous figure and one I cannot understand for what seems to be such straight forward endeavour. In many ways the trident replacement resembles the Type-26 project. A new hull with a relative side-step in capability. Indeed the main disparity in the projects is their relative cost. <br /><br />Either way, it's not something the UK can afford to loose and as a result we must take the brunt of the cost and move on. <br /><br />In an ideal world, we'd see the suggested boost in conventional force as well as trident. It seems to me that the RN is a few ships and boats away from being what I'd consider effective. The price / performance aspect of a little more investment is quite frustrating. 1 x Type-45, 2 x Astute, 14 x Type 26 on top of the current fleet and suddenly you have a navy to be proud of. Instead it sits just below the line in numbers and is crippled as a result.<br /><br />Luckily the T-26 looks to be an absolute cracker of a ship, which is enough to put a smile back on my face. At least until they announce how many they're building ;)<br /><br />Thanks for the article Gabriele. I come here quite often and I enjoy your work. connorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04704876566650725331noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-22999831962550864392015-02-23T19:58:55.147+01:002015-02-23T19:58:55.147+01:00As Gabriel points out, the Trident replacement is ...As Gabriel points out, the Trident replacement is about subs not about missiles. In my view there is really only two alternatives to the current plans in the shorter term.<br /><br />1) Lease 2-3 US SSBNs. Additionally these could be based out of the US saving costs for UK maintenance facilities. It would also keep the Scots happy.<br />2) Design an extended Astute design to accommodate a single 4 tube CMC. This would then be the base common design for a follow on SSNs / SSBNs. The CMC could also house vertically launched Tomahawks SSGN style.<br /><br />I actually prefer option 2 as it would keep the UK SSN capability and assuming that 5 could be built it would improve conventional forces also. Nuclear destruction power could be maintained by putting more warheads per missile. Any savings should be spent on BMD T45s (or similar).<br /><br />Longer term I would like the UK to go for a Cruise Missile solution as over the next 20 years Ballistic Missiles will become more vulnerable to countermeasures.<br /><br />I see the argument about possible adversaries getting concerned that a cruise missile strike could be nuclear when its not, but we have that today with French / US / Russian cruise missiles and bombs .<br /><br />RepulseAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-23695079722990892832015-02-23T16:55:26.020+01:002015-02-23T16:55:26.020+01:00What about a missile like FastHawk? or something s...What about a missile like FastHawk? or something similar? Hypersonic, Stealthy and with decent legs that can be fired from an SSN and can offer us a credible deterrent. With the advent of anti-ballistic missile defence systems like the S-500 is fast and stealthy the best option going forward? Lot of talk about the future of stealth being more about speed rather than reducing RCS, why not go down the same route.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-10854459618501710312015-02-21T19:15:20.883+01:002015-02-21T19:15:20.883+01:00A competent nation, such as Russia, can be expecte...A competent nation, such as Russia, can be expected to shoot down inbound cruise missiles. Mike Wheatleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01785543626725340909noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-12316835888522716232015-02-21T08:58:05.010+01:002015-02-21T08:58:05.010+01:00To clarify, meant "B-61 capable conventional ...To clarify, meant "B-61 capable conventional B-52 or Tornado strike" (or F-16 or whatever else can carry them). Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-9377913837172937592015-02-21T08:53:37.853+01:002015-02-21T08:53:37.853+01:00I always "um and ah" over this. If you a...I always "um and ah" over this. If you are engaging a non-nuclear enemy, the UK is a signatory to the treaty saying we will never nuke a non-nuclear adversary. Even if the enemy doubts our intentions, it doesn't matter if they are uncertain as to whether re the conventional or nuclear missile, as they can't launch a nuclear response. They might have a twitchy nuclear-armed ally, but any such ally will not risk a nuclear exchange until they are super-sure our attack on their ally is nuclear. <br /><br />I can see the argument that if you are engaging a Chinese carrier battle-group and you have nuke-tipped Tomahawks, the moment you fire a conventional one, you run the risk of the enemy reacting by dialling up an SSBN strike. <br /><br />OTOH, if things have got that serious that we are engaging a Chinese carrier group, they might still go nuclear if you waste their Carrier group conventionally, anyway. Once you engage China, NK etc, you are already in the realms of nuclear roulette.<br /><br />Furthermore, I don't understand the fuss over nuke-tipped Tomahawks, when the US etc has the B-61s. According to the same logic, a conventional B-52 or Tornado strike runs the risk of the enemy over-reacting in anticipation of a nuclear hit, just as much as a ship carrying a mixture of conventional and nuke-tipped Tomahawks.<br /><br />I firmly believe nukes should be at the strategic and not tactical level, but if the argument against nuke-tipped Tomahawks is sound, why haven't things like the B-61 been withdrawn?<br /><br />ADB <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-40904086382119281052015-02-21T08:51:14.121+01:002015-02-21T08:51:14.121+01:00Gabriele - I can see how this might be an issue bu...Gabriele - I can see how this might be an issue but I am really not certain how else we can save our conventional forces from the expenditure of Successor & the rest of the future deterrent, without moving to an option akin to this.<br />A compromise (and a descalation for most of time, although an escalation at times of tension) would be to store the nuclear armed missiles a long way away from the boats (Aldermastern?) and only actual load them at times of tension. At all other times they would be stored in England (a bonus for UK relations!) and subject to international review.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-55141751810192333642015-02-21T04:07:20.512+01:002015-02-21T04:07:20.512+01:00Surely the point of a continuous at sea deterrent ...Surely the point of a continuous at sea deterrent is that it's always working - that no-one, friend or enemy, can determine a change in UK defence posture. They just know that at all times there is a SSBN running silent and deep and ready to lay waste to any nation state that orders a nuclear strike on the UK.<br /><br />Moving to an air based dual use platform that is not 24/365 dedicated means that essentially the UK will be observed escalating the nuclear posture in time of crisis. Is that a good idea?<br /><br />First strike on UK airfields and no stability of second strike? Not a good idea.<br /><br />Carrier borne nuclear strike - then offload nuclear weapons during Corporate II - no nuclear deterrent.<br /><br />The UK needs to get MPA to protect the approaches to Faslane but attempting to run a nuclear strike capability from a small land mass like the UK is far from optimal.<br /><br />Did the author of the paper look at this from a game-theoretic approach and look at concepts such as stability of second strike, escalation and so on?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-25333358803409987392015-02-20T21:03:09.029+01:002015-02-20T21:03:09.029+01:00Don't think a modified Tomahawk will ever be a...Don't think a modified Tomahawk will ever be an option again. Can't compromise your main tactical cruise missile (and the main one of the US Navy, especially) by introducing the uncertainty of whether it is a conventional or nuclear launch.Gabrielehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01623558391676151582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-66654616193250671712015-02-20T18:53:15.449+01:002015-02-20T18:53:15.449+01:00Toby - you completely misunderstood the point I wa...Toby - you completely misunderstood the point I was making (as pointed out by Anon) and enhanced it. Yes they were offloaded, into the magazines of an RFA headed in the opposite direction.<br /><br />And can you please explain how a part-time deterent deters?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09072697695662624630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-26145844240178450022015-02-20T18:39:37.229+01:002015-02-20T18:39:37.229+01:00Out of interest what what safeguards a carrier gro...Out of interest what what safeguards a carrier group from nuclear attack? I would have thought if you knew the rough position and heading of a carrier its possible to strike close enough to render it in operable. <br /><br />regardless of nuclear, with Chinese developing anti ship ballistic missiles as well as Indians and Russians developing hyper sonic cruise missiles, a carrier is simply to vulnerable to trust your only nuclear deterrent with.Adam Evanshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14599073843470602101noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-25119002585931838652015-02-20T18:21:18.298+01:002015-02-20T18:21:18.298+01:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09072697695662624630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-80119831297113771242015-02-20T17:53:21.537+01:002015-02-20T17:53:21.537+01:00Given the feedback here I can see that the Centre ...Given the feedback here I can see that the Centre Forum proposal lacks accuracy in costings and also application (particularly the tankers). However the POINT that it raises - ie that with a relatively declining defence budget (and that is the reality we must work with), to spend so much on a single use deterrent is getting the point of ridculous. Here is an alternative for consideration - purchase 5-9 more Astutes (or improved Astutes with PWR3) and develop 150 warheads for use on top of Tomahawks and their eventual successor.<br />That would result in a dual use SSN fleet of 12-16 boats which, at all times MAY be armed with nuclear weapons and in time of tensions could be armed with 10-20 warheads per boat.... Again certainly not as credible as 4 SSBNs, but then this would give us a superb SSN fleet for conventional use AND a credible deterrent should the need arise....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-36120659374609496992015-02-20T17:42:28.123+01:002015-02-20T17:42:28.123+01:00I think the point is, if we are off in the South A...I think the point is, if we are off in the South Atlantic recovering the Falkands with our 'dual use' assets we are not going to be able to put up a credible detterant at the same time. You may think it an unlikely scenario, but it is not one I would like to take a risk on.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-16036331968022970302015-02-20T17:40:23.557+01:002015-02-20T17:40:23.557+01:00Fair enough. The question is at what point does th...Fair enough. The question is at what point does this crossover occur? Have you read Malcolm's paper: https://www.rusi.org/downloads/assets/201409_BP_Financial_Context_of_the_2015_SDSR.pdf? <br /><br />And if you want the absolute cheapest B61 option (nb, this isn't it, it is designed to maximise the conventional force enhancements for the RN under the nuclear rubric), then you can do it for <£5bn using F-35As and allowing the SSN industrial base to either fold or to buy it back for c. £5bn separately. The RN would suffer further, of course. <br /><br />The key here is that the choices are going to be (VERY) hard. It is inconceivable that funding will increase, so if nothing else, Trident needs to be included in the SDSR and allowed to compete against other priorities.... after all, if it is *that* important, it will make the grade. <br /><br />Personally, I don't think that it will. <br /><br />Interestingly, presumably neither do the Trident advocates who want it outside the SDSR: surely the only reason for doing this is if you don't believe that it makes the grade and you want to have it regardless. <br />Toby's Random Musingshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01756931810010547397noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-40831742032946454812015-02-20T17:33:34.453+01:002015-02-20T17:33:34.453+01:00Toby, your point about Italian Tornados sort of m...Toby, your point about Italian Tornados sort of makes the point. They don't have a nuclear deterant and no one considers Italy to be a nuclear power. It's simply not a deterant. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-4748644665476504362015-02-20T16:52:52.171+01:002015-02-20T16:52:52.171+01:00It is a shot in the dark, with all the numbers bei...It is a shot in the dark, with all the numbers being thrown around with little to no factual basis and not a definition of what budget the MOD is to have in the future. If it gets really bad, i would suggest dropping out of the deterrent altogether and pay the political price for once. Decisions have to be made? Then make them and take responsibility. Successive governments so far have made a lot of choices while denying the responsibility and downplaying the effect. An expensive deterrent which works will always be better than a less-but-still-very expensive one which doesn't really convince. Gabrielehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01623558391676151582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-11657036215125081332015-02-20T16:32:33.786+01:002015-02-20T16:32:33.786+01:00Actually, Richard, it does't need to be full t...Actually, Richard, it does't need to be full time, nor does it need to be dedicated. <br /><br />And why would we take B61s to the South Atlantic for CORPORATE II? In CORPORATE, the NDBs were off loaded, if you recall. <br /><br />Or were you proposing dropping them on Argentina? This would fundamentally change UK defence policy which has for 30+ years been clear that the UK would never use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear state. (The fact this would also be a violation of the Treaty of Tlatelolco rather pales into insignificance in the face of this.)Toby's Random Musingshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01756931810010547397noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-57977676806714470272015-02-20T16:24:46.263+01:002015-02-20T16:24:46.263+01:00Gabriele,
We're going to disagree, but that&#...Gabriele,<br /><br />We're going to disagree, but that's fine. We've run the figures by experts here in London in and out of government and they're comfortable with them. I'm very clear that we're talking about capital costs here, and I've been pretty deep into the MPA programme (you'll see the interim report here: http://centreforum.org/index.php/mainpublications/643-promoting-effective-competition-in-uk-defence-procurement) and it would obviously involve larger costs for the whole capability. <br /><br />On QRA, QRA(N) was never held by large numbers of aircraft in times of limited tension. Again, how many ItAF Tornados are bombed up with QRA crews at Ghedi right now? The point that made QRA credible was practice, practice, practice, no-notice tests and a scalability factor in times of tension. The same will be true in future. <br /><br />The point you need to be able to answer - and so far haven't - is the opportunity cost one. If you go with Trident, it will eat 25 -33% (Malcolm Chalmers thinks as high as 35% in some years) of the MoD's procurement budget from 2018-32 for a highly specialised, enormously capable, single-role asset that meets what is at best a Tier 2 threat to the UK. Unless you can find a lot more money (I certainly can't see where it comes from) this will inevitable come at the expense of the conventional forces. <br /><br />So, what is the smallest conventional front line that you'd be prepared to accept in order to be able to afford Trident?Toby's Random Musingshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01756931810010547397noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-66874456910057355452015-02-20T15:59:24.856+01:002015-02-20T15:59:24.856+01:00'Cept Toby, your proposal isn't "dual...'Cept Toby, your proposal isn't "dual use".<br /><br />For a deterent to be credible it has to be permanent and dedicated.<br /><br />If, for instance, Argentina cut up rough in the South Atlantic again, would we be able to send a carrier complete with a full loadout of B-61s?<br /><br />If "yes" then you're risking losing them to a lucky shot. The thought, quite frankly, doesn't bear thinking about from any perspective.<br /><br />If "no", bingo, unilateral nuclear disarmament. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09072697695662624630noreply@blogger.com