Trident to be funded by MOD - Sign it's not wanted?
Discussion
Magog said:
Lost_BMW said:
Eric Mc said:
So the PH Strategists are now certain that the only potential enemies we will face in the future will be lunatic, suicide prone religious zealots who will not be put off by the possibility of being nuked?
But won't there be a bit of an uproar if HMG nukes Bradford?Edited by Eric Mc on Friday 30th July 14:22
Having had to spend 3 days there lately, not so bad then!
KANEIT said:
deadslow said:
Trident is not a military card, but a political card, and ought to be funded from central monies, if at all.
On the other hand if the MOD have to pay for it they should have control of all the red buttons.rhinochopig said:
Sorry but you are wrong WRT to Trident. It is/was mainly developed by the US - google Polaris Sales Agreement. It's why we pay a levy on the kit - to recognise the huge US R&D costs. I'm also fairly sure that we don't actually own the Trident delivery system. We certainly don't maintain them as they go back to the US for refurb. The only bit that is UK owned are the warheads.
Care to expand as to how?
If you believe that Lockheed do all their own R&D in house, then so be it. Reality is though, quite very wrong.Care to expand as to how?
Meggitt being one company, but there are hundreds of small companies, mainly all UK based.
That is how. On top of all the work done in the UK by Lockheed Martin.
elster said:
rhinochopig said:
Sorry but you are wrong WRT to Trident. It is/was mainly developed by the US - google Polaris Sales Agreement. It's why we pay a levy on the kit - to recognise the huge US R&D costs. I'm also fairly sure that we don't actually own the Trident delivery system. We certainly don't maintain them as they go back to the US for refurb. The only bit that is UK owned are the warheads.
Care to expand as to how?
If you believe that Lockheed do all their own R&D in house, then so be it. Reality is though, quite very wrong.Care to expand as to how?
Meggitt being one company, but there are hundreds of small companies, mainly all UK based.
That is how. On top of all the work done in the UK by Lockheed Martin.
You said - "The development was indeed by a US company, mainly using British resources. Most high end technologies are developed using British alternatives.
This is quite frankly rubbish, you are arguing the US nuclear deterrent was mainly developed by the British. I have first hand experience of how protective the US are of their nuclear technology on the sub side and there is no way on earth they would be reliant on foreign R&D to the extent you suggest.
You then said "Yes the project has more than paid for itself." UK companies may well have some contribution to the D5 system, but given how much the UK deterrent costs - Fleet of 4 SSBNs, R-R facilities in derby, AWE A and B sites, Faslane, DRDL, etc. there is no way the likes of Meggitt et al do enough business to mitigate the total UK deterrent costs.
rhinochopig said:
Read my post again. I said it is/was MAINLY developed by the US. LM and Draper labs.
You said - "The development was indeed by a US company, mainly using British resources. Most high end technologies are developed using British alternatives.
This is quite frankly rubbish, you are arguing the US nuclear deterrent was mainly developed by the British. I have first hand experience of how protective the US are of their nuclear technology on the sub side and there is no way on earth they would be reliant on foreign R&D to the extent you suggest.
You then said "Yes the project has more than paid for itself." UK companies may well have some contribution to the D5 system, but given how much the UK deterrent costs - Fleet of 4 SSBNs, R-R facilities in derby, AWE A and B sites, Faslane, DRDL, etc. there is no way the likes of Meggitt et al do enough business to mitigate the total UK deterrent costs.
The D5 used a hell of a lot of UK resources for the controls and comms, as well as the composite developments.You said - "The development was indeed by a US company, mainly using British resources. Most high end technologies are developed using British alternatives.
This is quite frankly rubbish, you are arguing the US nuclear deterrent was mainly developed by the British. I have first hand experience of how protective the US are of their nuclear technology on the sub side and there is no way on earth they would be reliant on foreign R&D to the extent you suggest.
You then said "Yes the project has more than paid for itself." UK companies may well have some contribution to the D5 system, but given how much the UK deterrent costs - Fleet of 4 SSBNs, R-R facilities in derby, AWE A and B sites, Faslane, DRDL, etc. there is no way the likes of Meggitt et al do enough business to mitigate the total UK deterrent costs.
How much in revenues do you think they have received from the companies over this period? Less than 10 billion.
No
elster said:
rhinochopig said:
Read my post again. I said it is/was MAINLY developed by the US. LM and Draper labs.
You said - "The development was indeed by a US company, mainly using British resources. Most high end technologies are developed using British alternatives.
This is quite frankly rubbish, you are arguing the US nuclear deterrent was mainly developed by the British. I have first hand experience of how protective the US are of their nuclear technology on the sub side and there is no way on earth they would be reliant on foreign R&D to the extent you suggest.
You then said "Yes the project has more than paid for itself." UK companies may well have some contribution to the D5 system, but given how much the UK deterrent costs - Fleet of 4 SSBNs, R-R facilities in derby, AWE A and B sites, Faslane, DRDL, etc. there is no way the likes of Meggitt et al do enough business to mitigate the total UK deterrent costs.
The D5 used a hell of a lot of UK resources for the controls and comms, as well as the composite developments.You said - "The development was indeed by a US company, mainly using British resources. Most high end technologies are developed using British alternatives.
This is quite frankly rubbish, you are arguing the US nuclear deterrent was mainly developed by the British. I have first hand experience of how protective the US are of their nuclear technology on the sub side and there is no way on earth they would be reliant on foreign R&D to the extent you suggest.
You then said "Yes the project has more than paid for itself." UK companies may well have some contribution to the D5 system, but given how much the UK deterrent costs - Fleet of 4 SSBNs, R-R facilities in derby, AWE A and B sites, Faslane, DRDL, etc. there is no way the likes of Meggitt et al do enough business to mitigate the total UK deterrent costs.
How much in revenues do you think they have received from the companies over this period? Less than 10 billion.
No
Please provide some evidence that UK companies make more in exports that the Trident programme costs the UK. Simply saying No is hardly convincing.
HarryW said:
I the OP and link seems to be part of the mischief making undercurrent by those with an idealistic and left wing bent since new labber lost the election, it is particularly prevalent in the BBC in its reporting.
The use of £20b and half the annual defence budget in the same breath is a mischievous and misleading hyperbole. It is not going to cost £20b in one hit, it will in extremis, cost £100b over its entire 40 year lifecycle, which is from now to approximately the year 2050, yes 40 years. That equates to £2.5b per year. As already said look in other areas, £120b per year for the state Welfare bill for one. Perhaps a 2% saving on that will pay for Trident alone.
Get real peeps it's a very big, dangerous and unpredictable world out there, this is a national insurance policy. It is naive at best and foolhardy at worse to think otherwise.
Using the same tactics displayed in the OP I will use as a hyperbole in retort - over a 40 year period Welfare payments will cost us the tax payer nearly £5000b and the Trident replacement nuclear deterrent £100b. I know where I'd rather my Tax money was spent, I pay enough of the bloody stuff to have a say anyway
.
Edited to add and expand the point that its an unpredictable world; Think on this if you believe you know tomorrows answers today - the person or state it could be used against may not even be born yet.
The most sensible post in this thread The use of £20b and half the annual defence budget in the same breath is a mischievous and misleading hyperbole. It is not going to cost £20b in one hit, it will in extremis, cost £100b over its entire 40 year lifecycle, which is from now to approximately the year 2050, yes 40 years. That equates to £2.5b per year. As already said look in other areas, £120b per year for the state Welfare bill for one. Perhaps a 2% saving on that will pay for Trident alone.
Get real peeps it's a very big, dangerous and unpredictable world out there, this is a national insurance policy. It is naive at best and foolhardy at worse to think otherwise.
Using the same tactics displayed in the OP I will use as a hyperbole in retort - over a 40 year period Welfare payments will cost us the tax payer nearly £5000b and the Trident replacement nuclear deterrent £100b. I know where I'd rather my Tax money was spent, I pay enough of the bloody stuff to have a say anyway
. Edited to add and expand the point that its an unpredictable world; Think on this if you believe you know tomorrows answers today - the person or state it could be used against may not even be born yet.
Edited by HarryW on Friday 30th July 15:01
elster said:
The development was indeed by a US company, mainly using British resources. Most high end technologies are developed using British alternatives.
Oh but of course; and my Uncle designed the Aston Martin in his shed here in Louisiana while perfecting the Cadbury formula in a moonshine still.....then gave it all to the Brits.Edited by Jimbeaux on Sunday 1st August 01:05
Jimbeaux said:
elster said:
The development was indeed by a US company, mainly using British resources. Most high end technologies are developed using British alternatives.
Oh but of course; and my Uncle designed the Aston Martin in his shed here in Louisiana while perfecting the Cadbury formula in a moonshine still.....then gave it all to the Brits.Edited by Jimbeaux on Sunday 1st August 01:05
true story, not exactly related to nuclear but Brit technology non the less. My late MiL's cousin left for the US after the war, he was an old Asdic designer for the UK during the war. He went on to have a leading role in the US passive sonar technology for the US Navy, I meet him at a family do in the 80's whilst he was on a visit to the UK in an 'unofficial' capacity. It seemed that the UK at that time was about 5 years ahead of the game and in true US defence strategy came to plagiarise what we had.
Do you remember the complaints that video game consoles etc were being stripped down by the old Iron curtain states for their technology, trust me the US still blatantly does it today;- 'can we have one of those for evaluation please' from the USDOD = 'we want to strip it and build our own version'.
Take a very hard stare at any US major technology programme, it will have many non US peeps in key roles. The US strengths are capital, infrastructure, production and a just get it done attitude if it doesn't work we'll try again, those are done very well. Perhaps concepts, design and innovation are not so far up there............AIMHE.
Jimbeaux said:
elster said:
The development was indeed by a US company, mainly using British resources. Most high end technologies are developed using British alternatives.
Oh but of course; and my Uncle designed the Aston Martin in his shed here in Louisiana while perfecting the Cadbury formula in a moonshine still.....then gave it all to the Brits.Edited by Jimbeaux on Sunday 1st August 01:05
Not that there's anything wrong with taking things that work and putting them to very good use.
Mr Dave said:
Jimbeaux said:
elster said:
The development was indeed by a US company, mainly using British resources. Most high end technologies are developed using British alternatives.
Oh but of course; and my Uncle designed the Aston Martin in his shed here in Louisiana while perfecting the Cadbury formula in a moonshine still.....then gave it all to the Brits.Edited by Jimbeaux on Sunday 1st August 01:05
Not that there's anything wrong with taking things that work and putting them to very good use.
The trident missile programme though is definitely more american than British.
The Harrier is an interesting story in trans-Atlantic co-operation in that it probably wouldn't have come into service without serious pressure from the US Marine Corps.
Neither the RAF nor the Royal Navy initially exptressed any real interest in a combat ready development of teh Hawker P1127/Kestrel - both originally favouring a supersonic development called the P1154.
Neither the RAF nor the Royal Navy initially exptressed any real interest in a combat ready development of teh Hawker P1127/Kestrel - both originally favouring a supersonic development called the P1154.
Eric Mc said:
The Harrier is an interesting story in trans-Atlantic co-operation in that it probably wouldn't have come into service without serious pressure from the US Marine Corps.
Neither the RAF nor the Royal Navy initially exptressed any real interest in a combat ready development of teh Hawker P1127/Kestrel - both originally favouring a supersonic development called the P1154.
The Kestrel is a lovely plane, one at Yeovilton and it like the rest of the Harrier saga was one where it very nearly didn't happen. Oh the carbon fibre wing on the Mcdonnell Douglas Harrier ii, British again and not American iirc.Neither the RAF nor the Royal Navy initially exptressed any real interest in a combat ready development of teh Hawker P1127/Kestrel - both originally favouring a supersonic development called the P1154.
Eric Mc said:
The Harrier is an interesting story in trans-Atlantic co-operation in that it probably wouldn't have come into service without serious pressure from the US Marine Corps.
Neither the RAF nor the Royal Navy initially exptressed any real interest in a combat ready development of teh Hawker P1127/Kestrel - both originally favouring a supersonic development called the P1154.
Which would you rather have had though? Biggles is always going to prefer mach 1.7 to merely being transsonic. Objectively the 1154 was literally twice the aircraft the Kestrel was, the size and predicted performance very similar to the Jaguar. I'm curious why MWDP funding was never available for it or the BS100 engine.Neither the RAF nor the Royal Navy initially exptressed any real interest in a combat ready development of teh Hawker P1127/Kestrel - both originally favouring a supersonic development called the P1154.
HarryW said:
Jimbeaux said:
elster said:
The development was indeed by a US company, mainly using British resources. Most high end technologies are developed using British alternatives.
Oh but of course; and my Uncle designed the Aston Martin in his shed here in Louisiana while perfecting the Cadbury formula in a moonshine still.....then gave it all to the Brits.Edited by Jimbeaux on Sunday 1st August 01:05
true story, not exactly related to nuclear but Brit technology non the less. My late MiL's cousin left for the US after the war, he was an old Asdic designer for the UK during the war. He went on to have a leading role in the US passive sonar technology for the US Navy, I meet him at a family do in the 80's whilst he was on a visit to the UK in an 'unofficial' capacity. It seemed that the UK at that time was about 5 years ahead of the game and in true US defence strategy came to plagiarise what we had.
Do you remember the complaints that video game consoles etc were being stripped down by the old Iron curtain states for their technology, trust me the US still blatantly does it today;- 'can we have one of those for evaluation please' from the USDOD = 'we want to strip it and build our own version'.
Take a very hard stare at any US major technology programme, it will have many non US peeps in key roles. The US strengths are capital, infrastructure, production and a just get it done attitude if it doesn't work we'll try again, those are done very well. Perhaps concepts, design and innovation are not so far up there............AIMHE.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff