Trident to be funded by MOD - Sign it's not wanted?

[rhinochopig]

elster said:

rhinochopig said:

Sorry but I have to disagree. I very much doubt that Trident & V Class act as a halo product for UK defence exports. Trident is a us design, the NSRP is a US design in origin, which we are locked into a secrecy agreement over. That leaves the hull, hotel, weapon, and sensor systems, which we would have anyway without trident.

I can see both sides of the pro / anti argument, but if it comes down to conventional vs nuke capability, then I stand with the anti lobby.

You do realise there is no option for disarmament?

There is trident, or an alternative. No major political party has said they wouldn't have a nuclear project.

The development was indeed by a US company, mainly using British resources. Most high end technologies are developed using British alternatives.

The only options on the table are this trident replacement, which is already past the research stage. Or go on and create a whole new only British system.

Yes the project has more than paid for itself.

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?

[Alex97]

tegwin said:

Dont forget that if we are no longer have a nuclear deterant we can no longer sit on the UN security council.... this would be BAD... we would have completely no control and no ability to veto propositions put forward...... IMHO we have no choice, we HAVE to have nuclear weapons... carried on the trident makes a lot of sence!

Do you mean we'd lose our permanent seat on the UN Security Council? I have never ever heard this mentioned.

As far as I'm aware the permanent members of the Security Council were decided when only one of them was a nuclear state (the USA) and has nothing to do with the ongoing possession of a nuclear deterrent.

[rhinochopig]

Alex97 said:

tegwin said:

Dont forget that if we are no longer have a nuclear deterant we can no longer sit on the UN security council.... this would be BAD... we would have completely no control and no ability to veto propositions put forward...... IMHO we have no choice, we HAVE to have nuclear weapons... carried on the trident makes a lot of sence!

Do you mean we'd lose our permanent seat on the UN Security Council? I have never ever heard this mentioned.

As far as I'm aware the permanent members of the Security Council were decided when only one of them was a nuclear state (the USA) and has nothing to do with the ongoing possession of a nuclear deterrent.

And you can be a temporary member anyway - loads of other countries have had seats on it. Even Nigeria!

[Mojocvh]

Eric Mc said:

In 1975 it was decided that the Royal Navy would never need to supply its own Airborne Early Warning any more as it would only ever fight under the auspices of NATO and AEW assets would be provided by the RAF and other NATO air forces from land bases or the US Navy from their large carriers.

This was the ultimate result of that decision

So why no cat and trap for the new carriers to operate the excellent Hawkeye AEW aircraft then??

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/hawkey...

Instead this ANOTHER low altitude helicopter lash up on the way......

http://www.defence-update.net/wordpress/20100713_a...

NOW my question is what is the price difference between fitting cats/trap compared to purchasing an entirely new weapons system and it's lifelong support

Edited by Mojocvh on Friday 30th July 12:25

[Elroy Blue]

Eric Mc said:

In 1975 it was decided that the Royal Navy would never need to supply its own Airborne Early Warning any more as it would only ever fight under the auspices of NATO and AEW assets would be provided by the RAF and other NATO air forces from land bases or the US Navy from their large carriers.

This was the ultimate result of that decision

One of the most sensible (and correct) posts I've ever read on PH.

Shame the current Government is as thick as the last one.

[The real Apache]

rhinochopig said:

Alex97 said:

tegwin said:

Dont forget that if we are no longer have a nuclear deterant we can no longer sit on the UN security council.... this would be BAD... we would have completely no control and no ability to veto propositions put forward...... IMHO we have no choice, we HAVE to have nuclear weapons... carried on the trident makes a lot of sence!

Do you mean we'd lose our permanent seat on the UN Security Council? I have never ever heard this mentioned.

As far as I'm aware the permanent members of the Security Council were decided when only one of them was a nuclear state (the USA) and has nothing to do with the ongoing possession of a nuclear deterrent.

And you can be a temporary member anyway - loads of other countries have had seats on it. Even Nigeria!

Does China have a nuclear detterent?

[Mojocvh]

Eric Mc said:

I presume the £20 billion to be spent on Trident would be spread over at least ten years. That is £2 billion PER YEAR. If the annual defence budget is £40 billion, then Trident is 1/20 of the Annual Defence Budget - not 1/2.

My above sums may not be altogether correct but I do find newspaper and news articles which quote numbers without clarifying time periods dangerously misleading.

And since when has ANY goverment estimate been in the least realistic??

[rhinochopig]

Mojocvh said:

Eric Mc said:

In 1975 it was decided that the Royal Navy would never need to supply its own Airborne Early Warning any more as it would only ever fight under the auspices of NATO and AEW assets would be provided by the RAF and other NATO air forces from land bases or the US Navy from their large carriers.

This was the ultimate result of that decision

So why no cat and trap for the new carriers to operate the excellent Hawkeye AEW aircraft then??

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/hawkey...

Instead this ANOTHER low altitude helicopter lash up on the way......

http://www.defence-update.net/wordpress/20100713_a...

NOW my question is what is the price difference between fitting cats/trap compared to purchasing an entirely new weapons system and it's lifelong support

I though CVF would be cat and trap, but that the cat was of the mag accelerator variety, which wasn't working yet? The plan being to fit when ready.

Has this now changed?

Cats on a non nuke vessel are a PITA as you have to run specific SGs to create the steam. On a nuke carrier, you're never short of the stuff.

[Mojocvh]

The real Apache said:

rhinochopig said:

Alex97 said:

tegwin said:

Dont forget that if we are no longer have a nuclear deterant we can no longer sit on the UN security council.... this would be BAD... we would have completely no control and no ability to veto propositions put forward...... IMHO we have no choice, we HAVE to have nuclear weapons... carried on the trident makes a lot of sence!

Do you mean we'd lose our permanent seat on the UN Security Council? I have never ever heard this mentioned.

As far as I'm aware the permanent members of the Security Council were decided when only one of them was a nuclear state (the USA) and has nothing to do with the ongoing possession of a nuclear deterrent.

And you can be a temporary member anyway - loads of other countries have had seats on it. Even Nigeria!

Does China have a nuclear detterent?

?? you asking or telling?

[Eric Mc]

The real Apache said:

rhinochopig said:

Alex97 said:

tegwin said:

Dont forget that if we are no longer have a nuclear deterant we can no longer sit on the UN security council.... this would be BAD... we would have completely no control and no ability to veto propositions put forward...... IMHO we have no choice, we HAVE to have nuclear weapons... carried on the trident makes a lot of sence!

Do you mean we'd lose our permanent seat on the UN Security Council? I have never ever heard this mentioned.

As far as I'm aware the permanent members of the Security Council were decided when only one of them was a nuclear state (the USA) and has nothing to do with the ongoing possession of a nuclear deterrent.

And you can be a temporary member anyway - loads of other countries have had seats on it. Even Nigeria!

Does China have a nuclear detterent?

It certainly possesses a nuclear arsenal.

[Spunagain]

AWE is wholly owned by the UK government and operated by a consortium of companies some of which are US based. GOCO - Goverment owned contractor operated!

The science and technology itself is developed and maintained by British citizens! IFRC

rhinochopig said:

Well not that independent given that a) Trident is a US delivery system, and b) AWE is largely owned by US companies.

[The real Apache]

Mojocvh said:

The real Apache said:

rhinochopig said:

Alex97 said:

tegwin said:

Dont forget that if we are no longer have a nuclear deterant we can no longer sit on the UN security council.... this would be BAD... we would have completely no control and no ability to veto propositions put forward...... IMHO we have no choice, we HAVE to have nuclear weapons... carried on the trident makes a lot of sence!

Do you mean we'd lose our permanent seat on the UN Security Council? I have never ever heard this mentioned.

As far as I'm aware the permanent members of the Security Council were decided when only one of them was a nuclear state (the USA) and has nothing to do with the ongoing possession of a nuclear deterrent.

And you can be a temporary member anyway - loads of other countries have had seats on it. Even Nigeria!

Does China have a nuclear detterent?

?? you asking or telling?

a sentence starting with 'does' and ending with a question mark is usually found in a query Mojo.....you having another bad day?

[Mr Whippy]

rhinochopig said:

randlemarcus said:

Blib said:

What on Earth is the point of Trident in this day and age?



Shirley, if we want nukes, we can buy nuclear armed cruise missiles from our mates, the Americans and stick them on ships?

Because a nice ICBM, once launched, cannot be stopped (except maybe by the Americans). Which is why we also need nuke subs to launch them.

Cruises are easy to shoot down, ships follow the "if you can see it, you can kill it" logic.

And banned under INF IIRC.

That is the stupidity of the situation.

They are all ultimately, hopefully, a deterrent, be they cruise missles from mobile launchers or ICBM's from silos on ground or submarines.

If GLCM's with nuclear warheads are considered too evil, while also being cheap, then you do have to worry, nuclear weapons full stop are pretty damn evil. If a cheap mobile ground launcher gives you sleepless nights, a submarine full of warheads will too

Far from an expert, but I think some advanced and cheaper and more evil alternative is a better bet than expensive submarines that just deter. All you need is a fruitcake who calls the bluff and launches a short-range missle and their job is done.
Better not to develop ways to intercept the weapons so they are much less of a threat?!

Hmmm

Dave

[rhinochopig]

Spunagain said:

AWE is wholly owned by the UK government and operated by a consortium of companies some of which are US based. GOCO - Goverment owned contractor operated!

The science and technology itself is developed and maintained by British citizens! IFRC

rhinochopig said:

Well not that independent given that a) Trident is a US delivery system, and b) AWE is largely owned by US companies.

You're quite right, I should have said managed and operated by instead of owned - poor English on my part. It still doesn't alter the fact that it's only the warhead though.

[dilbert]

Blib said:

Tell me who we could nuke with our lovely new ICBMs without the express permission from the Americans?

If we need to vapourise a country, I would assume that the Yanks would be pretty upset with them too.

Let them do it.

Though shalt never assume.

[Mojocvh]

The real Apache said:

Mojocvh said:

The real Apache said:

rhinochopig said:

Alex97 said:

tegwin said:

Dont forget that if we are no longer have a nuclear deterant we can no longer sit on the UN security council.... this would be BAD... we would have completely no control and no ability to veto propositions put forward...... IMHO we have no choice, we HAVE to have nuclear weapons... carried on the trident makes a lot of sence!

Do you mean we'd lose our permanent seat on the UN Security Council? I have never ever heard this mentioned.

As far as I'm aware the permanent members of the Security Council were decided when only one of them was a nuclear state (the USA) and has nothing to do with the ongoing possession of a nuclear deterrent.

And you can be a temporary member anyway - loads of other countries have had seats on it. Even Nigeria!

Does China have a nuclear detterent?

?? you asking or telling?

a sentence starting with 'does' and ending with a question mark is usually found in a query Mojo.....you having another bad day?

Hmm

Edited by Mojocvh on Friday 30th July 13:05

[TEKNOPUG]

dilbert said:

Blib said:

Tell me who we could nuke with our lovely new ICBMs without the express permission from the Americans?

If we need to vapourise a country, I would assume that the Yanks would be pretty upset with them too.

Let them do it.

Though shalt never assume.

They'll be late again anyway....

[dilbert]

Spelling I'm afraid...

Thou shalt check spelling!

[Corsair7]

Trident replacement is the un-needed purchase the country doesnt need.

Its like the 50" 3d plasma screen needed to enjoy 3d films in the home.

No one really needs one. Yet many will buy it just because they can get the credit.

Life wont be better after we get the 3d flat screen. But hey, never mind, lets put ourselves in hoch for it anyway.

[The real Apache]

Severe cuts already on the way to pay for it too

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1298871/RA...