Trident - cost
Discussion
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.
Ministers from Northern Ireland, have already said that if Scotland does not want the Trident base, they would more then welcome having one in a northern Ireland port. hidetheelephants said:
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.
Do you really believe the government Babcock and Lockheed Martin Wouldn't be able to come up with a solution,
Rollin said:
So you still don't understand what a deterrent is?
So you still don't understand what asymmetric warfare is? Or why we went from the nuclear tripwire strategy (unrealistic) to flexible response and back to nuclear tripwire (but only on grounds of cost) even though it doesn't make sense? You don't understand the moral judgements involved in unleashing devastating nuclear war that could end human civilisation simply because one state threatens to invade another (as they have done throughout time)? You don't understand how tactical nuclear weapons may be a better alternative? You don't understand how weak our conventional forces have become due to the strain of funding an unusable deterrent? You don't understand how self-determination works? You don't understand what civil disobedience can do? You don't understand that Westminster is never likely to deploy force to remain one part of the UK to remain in the Union against its will? You don't understand the significance of 95% of Scottish constituencies returning Nationalist MPs at the last election?You have some thinking to do by the looks of it.
Bluebarge said:
You don't understand how weak our conventional forces have become due to the strain of funding an unusable deterrent?
that simple line alone shows the flaw in your argument.the run-down in conventional forces has nothing to do with paying for trident and everything to do with the government's view on priorities.
I suggest you look at the foreign aid budget as a cause, that's somewhat closer to reality.
Scuffers said:
that simple line alone shows the flaw in your argument.
the run-down in conventional forces has nothing to do with paying for trident and everything to do with the government's view on priorities.
I suggest you look at the foreign aid budget as a cause, that's somewhat closer to reality.
Sorry, but that's nonsense. The Govt is committed to spending 2% of GDP on Defence and no more. Trident eats up a large part of that. What it spends on other departments is irrelevant if it will not shift from the 2% target.the run-down in conventional forces has nothing to do with paying for trident and everything to do with the government's view on priorities.
I suggest you look at the foreign aid budget as a cause, that's somewhat closer to reality.
ash73 said:
s2art said:
ash73 said:
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
Wiki says £3 billion for the missiles. What do we pay if we use one?
exactly.
the current Trident launch platfroms are:
UK - Vanguard-class Sub
US - Ohio-class Sub
the Vanguard subs are a Briticism (Vickers) designed and manufactured, the only bit that is of US design is the missile compartment, that's heavy based on the US Ohio class, but smaller (only 16 launch tubes vs. 24 for the Ohio class).
Other point is this, although the Trident Missiles themselves are brought/leased from the US, the warheads are not, they are UK designed/made.
the current Trident launch platfroms are:
UK - Vanguard-class Sub
US - Ohio-class Sub
the Vanguard subs are a Briticism (Vickers) designed and manufactured, the only bit that is of US design is the missile compartment, that's heavy based on the US Ohio class, but smaller (only 16 launch tubes vs. 24 for the Ohio class).
Other point is this, although the Trident Missiles themselves are brought/leased from the US, the warheads are not, they are UK designed/made.
ash73 said:
That's just the capital cost of refurbishing the warheads (which do contain some US components from what I've read). It wouldn't surprise me if a third of the TCO goes to the US (that's just a guess); leasing a nuclear missile system and associated paraphernalia can't be cheap and we probably aren't even allowed to see the software code. The true costs are as impossible to track down as the subs themselves.
Why does the Vanguard class have a lifetime of 25 years and the Ohio class 50 years?
Ohio's need a pretty major re-fit and re-fuel at 25 years.Why does the Vanguard class have a lifetime of 25 years and the Ohio class 50 years?
you can argue that better to replace them in 25 years with a better design with more up-to-date systems
Bluebarge said:
Rollin said:
So you still don't understand what a deterrent is?
So you still don't understand what asymmetric warfare is? Or why we went from the nuclear tripwire strategy (unrealistic) to flexible response and back to nuclear tripwire (but only on grounds of cost) even though it doesn't make sense? You don't understand the moral judgements involved in unleashing devastating nuclear war that could end human civilisation simply because one state threatens to invade another (as they have done throughout time)? You don't understand how tactical nuclear weapons may be a better alternative? You don't understand how weak our conventional forces have become due to the strain of funding an unusable deterrent? You don't understand how self-determination works? You don't understand what civil disobedience can do? You don't understand that Westminster is never likely to deploy force to remain one part of the UK to remain in the Union against its will? You don't understand the significance of 95% of Scottish constituencies returning Nationalist MPs at the last election?You have some thinking to do by the looks of it.
Since the UK has had a nuclear deterrent, when has it been threatened with invasion? Have our 'weak conventional forces' been the deterrent?
Discuss your moral hangups with Putin.
A vote for independence for Scotland would leave them out of the EU anyway with little chance of joining. That's how self determination works in this case.
ash73 said:
s2art said:
They will stay where they are. It would be part of the deal to let Scotland go.
Rollin said:
A vote for independence for Scotland would leave them out of the EU anyway with little chance of joining.
So Scotland can't negotiate with Europe, but we can tell them exactly what to do. Er, ok. 
I don't think Putin is an issue really, he's a bit OCD but hasn't done anything crazy. What comes after Putin is the more interesting aspect.
And BTW, Scotland can vote for out but the UK doesnt have to listen, it would drive a hard bargain including a 30+ year lease on Faslane with the Yanks leaning hard on iScotland.
loose cannon said:
hidetheelephants said:
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.
Do you really believe the government Babcock and Lockheed Martin Wouldn't be able to come up with a solution,
ash73 said:
Why does the Vanguard class have a lifetime of 25 years and the Ohio class 50 years?
The USN like repairing over replacing, the RN the other way round; a 25 year refit for an Ohio involves pretty much gutting the thing and rebuilding it, not so much a cost saving as a means of moving costs into a different place in the ledger.hidetheelephants said:
loose cannon said:
hidetheelephants said:
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.
Do you really believe the government Babcock and Lockheed Martin Wouldn't be able to come up with a solution,
ash73 said:
Why does the Vanguard class have a lifetime of 25 years and the Ohio class 50 years?
The USN like repairing over replacing, the RN the other way round; a 25 year refit for an Ohio involves pretty much gutting the thing and rebuilding it, not so much a cost saving as a means of moving costs into a different place in the ledger.loose cannon said:
should imagine they could be stored at either Aldermaston or burghfield were they are currently stored and maintained, plenty of housing etc around those establishments, they are also shipped by road back and forth to those establishments regularly as part of the maintenance of the current deterrent, Portsmouth navy ship yard was closed for building ships in 2013 I'm sure it could be re developed to suit.
Coulport has the Explosives Handling Jetty for loading/unloading the big fireworks, attaches/detaches the warheads from the fireworks and stores the fireworks; I'm not sure whether any maintenance is done to the warheads there or if it's all AWE these days, but the warheads for polaris were maintained at Coulport so this may have continued. These are not activities that can be carried out legally anywhere near centres of population nor would it be a good idea to change that law for convenience's sake, the explosive safe distance rules have been written with the blood of many unfortunates.Bluebarge said:
Rollin said:
So you still don't understand what a deterrent is?
So you still don't understand what asymmetric warfare is? Or why we went from the nuclear tripwire strategy (unrealistic) to flexible response and back to nuclear tripwire (but only on grounds of cost) even though it doesn't make sense? You don't understand the moral judgements involved in unleashing devastating nuclear war that could end human civilisation simply because one state threatens to invade another (as they have done throughout time)? You don't understand how tactical nuclear weapons may be a better alternative? You don't understand how weak our conventional forces have become due to the strain of funding an unusable deterrent? You don't understand how self-determination works? You don't understand what civil disobedience can do? You don't understand that Westminster is never likely to deploy force to remain one part of the UK to remain in the Union against its will? You don't understand the significance of 95% of Scottish constituencies returning Nationalist MPs at the last election?You have some thinking to do by the looks of it.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff