Trident - cost

[Pan Pan Pan]

AngryPartsBloke said:

I just do not buy into this idea that because we haven't been invaded or Nuked in the last 30 years that it by default means trident is doing it's job.

If we invested that money into the Army, Navy and RAF to give us more of a capability to project power across the world that other Nations would think "Oh, well they have no nuclear capability so we will have a go with them"

Nuclear deterrents work precisely because more than one country has one, But any major country which does not have one, would be wasting its time and money, if they believed having a large set of conventional forces would be a worthwhile option. There are many countries which nevertheless enjoy the effect that the nuclear deterrent has had over the last 30 years, who do not have their own nuclear deterrent.
The best option for major countries, would be a reasonably sized, well equipped set of conventional forces backed by a nuclear deterrent.
Perhaps those countries which don't have a nuclear deterrent should pay toward the upkeep of the deterrent in the (allied) countries that do. They are after all enjoying the result brought about by the countries that do have them.

[Strocky]

Bluebarge said:

I thought you were an accountant?

.

That drives a Porsche

[Halb]

Scuffers said:

Your not wrong.

Thematic level of decision making is a joke, everything from not fitting cat/trap, not being nuclear powered, taking 10+years to build them, etc etc etc...

He mentioned the cat thing, huge mistake, and the 100% retro--refurbish? That the supplier screwed the MoD over but the fact that it was able to, through a crappyily written contract?

[Scuffers]

Halb said:

He mentioned the cat thing, huge mistake, and the 100% retro--refurbish? That the supplier screwed the MoD over but the fact that it was able to, through a crappyily written contract?

not as simple as that.

the US wanted us to use their new EMALS system, (being used on the new US carriers) and the US government even offered to garrentee the costs, even if we went with conventional steam Catapult(s), without nuclear power you then need an oil-fired boiler to make the steam.

That get's up to Nuclear powered, by no going this way, over half the fuel stores on the carrier are now needed for bunker fuel, displacing jet fuel, this means they can't go anywhere far without being shadowed by tankers.

Then we get to how long and how much??? contacts were awarded in 2008 and currently they are talking 2016 for launch of the first one with an in service date in 2020, ie, 12 years later (assuming no more delays).

costs have basically doubled so far too, with even less certainty over what capabilities they will end up with.

Then we get to will we actually have any planes to put on them, without Cat/Trap we are basically stuck with F35B's, which are also massively late and overrunning budgets by staggering amounts, currently they are projected to cost some £104M + engine, vs. some half that for F/A 18E/F's.

[Pan Pan Pan]

ash73 said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

Perhaps those countries which don't have a nuclear deterrent should pay toward the upkeep of the deterrent in the (allied) countries that do. They are after all enjoying the result brought about by the countries that do have them.

A protection racket... yes that's progress.

Absolutely, why should they enjoy the same relative peace that the countries which do have, and pay for a nuclear deterrent has brought about for nothing? They should be only too happy to help pay towards the upkeep of a nuclear deterrent in those allied countries which do hold a nuclear deterrent.

[Bluebarge]

Pan Pan Pan said:

Absolutely, why should they enjoy the same relative peace that the countries which do have, and pay for a nuclear deterrent has brought about for nothing? They should be only too happy to help pay towards the upkeep of a nuclear deterrent in those allied countries which do hold a nuclear deterrent.

Because they know we wouldn't risk nuclear Armageddon to save Estonia/Poland/{insert name of other NATO ally here}.

[Hooli]

Scuffers said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

The civil service it seems, recruits the civil servants for the MOD from the same pool as the ones they recruit for the NHS.

That pretty much describes the entire public sector.

It sure does.

[Pan Pan Pan]

AnotherClarkey said:

I am stunned at how cheap it is - the company I work for has recently shelled that out in a single transaction.

Exactly. the annual cost of keeping Trident is microscopic compared to the annual cost of keeping the NHS. But BOTH are required, getting rid of one to fund the other is a deluded way of thinking.
Even if other aggressor countries only used conventional armed forces to take another country over, do those in whichever country has been taken over, actually believe they will be able to maintain their own institutions?
There might well still be a health service in this country if we got overrun, but do people actually believe it will be used to cater for the health needs of indigenous population? We would be nothing more than slaves in our own country, and would get as much, or more likely as little as the aggressing country deems fit to suit `its' (not our) needs.
All those people who believed another major war of conquest after the 14-18 mess, was not a possibility, were proven wrong, totally and utterly wrong. Anyone who believes now, that such a war is not possible in this day and age, are idiots beyond delusion. The only thing that has prevented such a major conflict occurring again, as we have seen with our own eyes, has been the nuclear deterrent.
The only way to rid ourselves of the need for a nuclear deterrent is if ALL countries currently holding them decide to do so at the same time. Answers on a postcard as to how that is going to be achieved, and how the ability to build nuclear weapons is somehow, going to be `forgotten' forever.

[Rovinghawk]

Bluebarge said:

(Other stuff)
So, £167bn over 40-50 years.......... may not be too far out.

Where does this money go? Into uk construction, engineering & the wider economy. It builds & maintain expertise.

Bluebarge said:

If the Jocks leave the UK

AIUI, that won't happen in the next 30 years. Why talk about stuff that won't happen?

[Bluebarge]

Rovinghawk said:

Bluebarge said:

(Other stuff)
So, £167bn over 40-50 years.......... may not be too far out.

Where does this money go? Into uk construction, engineering & the wider economy. It builds & maintain expertise.

Bluebarge said:

If the Jocks leave the UK

AIUI, that won't happen in the next 30 years. Why talk about stuff that won't happen?

Where does the money not go? Into building strong conventional forces that are more likely to be usable than a "will never be launched" Domesday weapon. That money could also go into UK weapons production, whereas Trident is built and maintained in the US.

Jock referendum? If they want to go, they will go. If Cameron loses his EU referendum, there is a very strong chance the Jocks would leave. Scotland is a one-party state, Labour is on its knees, the Tories have not a cat in hell's chance of increasing their vote in Scotland. Unless that changes soon, the impetus to go will be there. Surely you didn't believe Cameron's pledge that this would be a "once-in-a-lifetime" vote? Like the Jocks pay any attention to him

[majordad]

Where are you going to sail the submarines from when Scotland says out, out out ? Not too many suitable ports in England and maybe only one in Wales.

[Scuffers]

ash73 said:

How much of it goes to the Americans for licensing Trident tech?

Bugger all relativity.

The figures banded about for the costs are laughable, yes it's not cheap, but it's not that much.

[s2art]

majordad said:

Where are you going to sail the submarines from when Scotland says out, out out ? Not too many suitable ports in England and maybe only one in Wales.

They will stay where they are. It would be part of the deal to let Scotland go. No doubt the Yanks will put a lot of pressure on the scots on this matter.

[s2art]

ash73 said:

You're just guessing, what are the actual figures? How much gets spent in the UK, and how much gets spent abroad?

A little over a billion for the missiles. The rest is spent in the UK.

Edited to add; I dont know if we need to replace the missiles we already have, if not then there is no capital cost involved, everything else is spent in the UK. Note the missiles are actually leased

Edited by s2art on Thursday 26th November 19:21

Edited by s2art on Thursday 26th November 19:24

[Rollin]

Bluebarge said:

Where does the money not go? Into building strong conventional forces that are more likely to be usable than a "will never be launched" Domesday weapon. That money could also go into UK weapons production, whereas Trident is built and maintained in the US.

Jock referendum? If they want to go, they will go. If Cameron loses his EU referendum, there is a very strong chance the Jocks would leave. Scotland is a one-party state, Labour is on its knees, the Tories have not a cat in hell's chance of increasing their vote in Scotland. Unless that changes soon, the impetus to go will be there. Surely you didn't believe Cameron's pledge that this would be a "once-in-a-lifetime" vote? Like the Jocks pay any attention to him

So you still don't understand what a deterrent is?

Why do you think Cameron's pledge was aimed just at Scotland? The UK parliament will have to authorise another referendum and Cameron has a mandate from the UK saying that it was "once in a lifetime". So whether the nationalists pay attention or not is irrelevant.

[majordad]

s2art said:

majordad said:

Where are you going to sail the submarines from when Scotland says out, out out ? Not too many suitable ports in England and maybe only one in Wales.

They will stay where they are. It would be part of the deal to let Scotland go. No doubt the Yanks will put a lot of pressure on the scots on this matter.

Don't think so, us Irish booted you out in 1938 like the Scots might do and we kept the ports, and a year or so later you needed them. I think you need to examine a situation where there is no Scotish ports available to you.

[s2art]

majordad said:

s2art said:

majordad said:

Where are you going to sail the submarines from when Scotland says out, out out ? Not too many suitable ports in England and maybe only one in Wales.

They will stay where they are. It would be part of the deal to let Scotland go. No doubt the Yanks will put a lot of pressure on the scots on this matter.

Don't think so, us Irish booted you out in 1938 like the Scots might do and we kept the ports, and a year or so later you needed them. I think you need to examine a situation where there is no Scotish ports available to you.

Tell the Yanks that. They have a big investment in Faslane, big US arms companies involved. Both the rUK and iScotland will come under huge pressure, and my bet is iScotland will fold.

[///ajd]

The costs of trident are quite modest over the life of the thing, as pointed out above.

The case to bin it to fund conventional forces is naive nonsense. As a deterrent it is far more cost effective than the conventional forces you'd need to achieve the same effect - and even then against a nuclear aggressor they would still be impotent.

There is more than ever a case to base them in Plymouth. The work has been done, its feasible, and it would be a useful way to disarm one of the SNPs boring whinge points. Whether the blue face paint crowd would wake up and think - hmmm, that was stoopid we just lost 8000 jobs for no particular reason and are still paying for the thing - is unknown. Frankly I don't care anymore, but would feel sorry for the community impact around Faslane. The way the SNP are destroying Scotland is sad but until Scots stop voting for them, it is not clear what anyone else in the UK can do about it. By voting SNP Scots are only hurting themselves - it is up to them to realise other parties offer a better way by not being selfish nationalist fraudsters.

Funny to see Corbyn look 1000x more ridiculous than Chamberlain today. At least there is an argument that Chamberlain was buying more time - Corbyn has no excuse. Pathetic!

[hidetheelephants]

///ajd said:

There is more than ever a case to base them in Plymouth. The work has been done, its feasible, and it would be a useful way to disarm one of the SNPs boring whinge points. Whether the blue face paint crowd would wake up and think - hmmm, that was stoopid we just lost 8000 jobs for no particular reason and are still paying for the thing - is unknown. Frankly I don't care anymore, but would feel sorry for the community impact around Faslane. The way the SNP are destroying Scotland is sad but until Scots stop voting for them, it is not clear what anyone else in the UK can do about it. By voting SNP Scots are only hurting themselves - it is up to them to realise other parties offer a better way by not being selfish nationalist fraudsters.

There's no prospect of them being moved to Plymouth; just the dredging to allow all-tide access would cost hundreds of millions. Then there's the space issue, where are the subs going? Or where are you going to put the frigates, LPDs and other bits and bobs displaced from Plymouth by the subs? Then you need to find space for another nuclear certified drydock or shiplift; you can't use the existing one as it is in steady use for refits and you need another to cater for ongoing maintenance and repairs. Then you need to find somewhere to dig a big hole for the missiles to live in.

[speedy_thrills]

Inflation? How is funding being allocated? I had a friend worked on a U.S. defence project (military food preservation) and as there where funding cuts to the defence budget he suddenly ended up working for the department of agriculture. Same research, same project but allocated under a different budget.

Also look at the history of major defence projects on meeting budgeting targets. You would probably add a margin if you wwanted to come in with a realistic cost estimate.