Trident - cost
Discussion
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"
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"
Gaz. said:
3 countries were named 'the axis of evil', two had nukes and one didn't. One is kept at arms length, one we try to talk to, and one 'we' invaded...
Not correct. One has the ability to develop nuclear weapons but is not thought to have them yet. One was thought to have WMD which is why it was invaded - in that case claiming to have a deterrent and the will to use it actually precipitated an invasion.Bluebarge said:
£30bn (they're setting aside £10bn as a contingency fund so it will probably be more than that) is just the build cost of the subs. Maintenance costs, upgrade costs over the life of the subs (nuclear reactors don't last forever, kit will require upgrading to avoid obsolescence) cost of the missiles and their maintenance (all currently done by the Yanks under a lease arrangement), cost of infrastructure to maintain the subs (dry dock maintenance/upgrades, nuclear fuel handling facilities) are all excluded from that calculation. So, £167bn over 40-50 years (by which stage ICBMs may be completely obsolete) may not be too far out. If the Jocks leave the UK, you can add to that several billion for building a new Trident base elsewhere in RUK.
In this case it's actually true, the reactors will be loaded with fuel and sealed up for the lifetime of the vessel, no refueling just like Astute. Squealing about the throughlife costs of one particular bit of kit is farcical, where were all these moaners when we signed up for F35/T45/Typhoon/pretty much anything that makes bang noises? It's inevitably several times the original ticket price.hidetheelephants said:
Bluebarge said:
£30bn (they're setting aside £10bn as a contingency fund so it will probably be more than that) is just the build cost of the subs. Maintenance costs, upgrade costs over the life of the subs (nuclear reactors don't last forever, kit will require upgrading to avoid obsolescence) cost of the missiles and their maintenance (all currently done by the Yanks under a lease arrangement), cost of infrastructure to maintain the subs (dry dock maintenance/upgrades, nuclear fuel handling facilities) are all excluded from that calculation. So, £167bn over 40-50 years (by which stage ICBMs may be completely obsolete) may not be too far out. If the Jocks leave the UK, you can add to that several billion for building a new Trident base elsewhere in RUK.
In this case it's actually true, the reactors will be loaded with fuel and sealed up for the lifetime of the vessel, no refueling just like Astute. Squealing about the throughlife costs of one particular bit of kit is farcical, where were all these moaners when we signed up for F35/T45/Typhoon/pretty much anything that makes bang noises? It's inevitably several times the original ticket price.Gecko1978 said:
Errrm did not scotland have a once in a life time/ generation etc vote on leaving and vote No so we can assume this weapon system will be fine through its life cycle and then when its time for renewal they can have another vote...
If Labour and the Tories can't persuade anyone in Scotland to vote for them I think another referendum is inevitable.hidetheelephants said:
In this case it's actually true, the reactors will be loaded with fuel and sealed up for the lifetime of the vessel, no refueling just like Astute. Squealing about the throughlife costs of one particular bit of kit is farcical, where were all these moaners when we signed up for F35/T45/Typhoon/pretty much anything that makes bang noises? It's inevitably several times the original ticket price.
Hardly "squealing" sunshine. Just pointing out that the figure quoted by the antis is probably closer to the sum that will be sucked out of the Defence budget than the figure for the build costs of the boats that will carry the missiles. Yes, there are whole life costs for any kit but those have to be budgeted for and should be factored into spending plans, otherwise we end up with aircraft carriers with no aircraft (aka "ferries") or Trident subs that can be tracked leaving base because we have no maritime patrol aircraft to keep Russian subs at bay (aka "an SSN target").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"
Reminds me of this Simpsons clipIf 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"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnBMwPcRbVE
fblm said:
Excuse my ignorance but how many of these are we buying and how the fvck can they cost 30bn? Even if we have 10 subs with 10 each thats 300m a pop, wtf?
Only 4 as far as I know. But because its only 4 they are expensive. The Yanks have programs to build their next gen subs, the first one has estimated cost of 13-14 billion dollars, subsequent ones come in at a little over half that. But they a tooling up to build a dozen, so they get better economies of scale.fblm said:
Excuse my ignorance but how many of these are we buying and how the fvck can they cost 30bn? Even if we have 10 subs with 10 each thats 300m a pop, wtf?
my guess is we are talking brand new subs and weapon sustem guidence and maintince and support equipment and all the R&D etc. Think of it this way you want 4 end of the world type devices that can operate alone in the harshest of envirmoents secure undetected and not at risk of going wrong etc and at the same time you can't tell anyone about any aspect of it for security reasons. The end solution has to be effective at short notice an be able to hit accuratly over a distance of was 3000 5000 7000 miles etc its a hugely complex task. my guess 50% will be R&D.
eharding said:
majordad said:
Would any Prime Minister actually give the order to launch Trident ? I don't think so . So wasted money ?
The general scenario is that the Prime Minister, and pretty much everyone you know and love, along with the rest of the country, would already be either vapourised or scrabbling about in the ruins wishing they had been vapourised, at which point the Royal Navy will return the compliment to whoever decided to strike first, the objective being to make a potential adversary understand a first strike is effectively suicide.I reckon it must be one of the hardest tasks a PM has to undertake.
Letter of last resort.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letters_of_last_reso...
Bluebarge said:
Hardly "squealing" sunshine. Just pointing out that the figure quoted by the antis is probably closer to the sum that will be sucked out of the Defence budget than the figure for the build costs of the boats that will carry the missiles. Yes, there are whole life costs for any kit but those have to be budgeted for and should be factored into spending plans, otherwise we end up with aircraft carriers with no aircraft (aka "ferries") or Trident subs that can be tracked leaving base because we have no maritime patrol aircraft to keep Russian subs at bay (aka "an SSN target").
I was chatting to a friend of mine in the Armed Forces a while ago, we covered many topics and one was contracts and new kit; the aircraft carriers and other things. He explained to me the queue of cock-ups which allowed the aircraft carrier farce to happen, the reason behind it, and I just came away depressed. The lack of ability of middle management and civil servants just circle jerking themselves over other departments, writing crappy contract after contract pissing money away. Makes me wonder how anything gets done.Simple analogy. 3 blokes walk down a dark back street at various times, in which a drug addled mugger is lurking, and waiting to attack, to get the cash for his next fix.
One of the blokes is on his own. The second is walking with a miniature poodle on a lead, the third has a 6 stone Rottweiler with him. Which one is even a drug addled mugger most likely to stay clear of?
One of the blokes is on his own. The second is walking with a miniature poodle on a lead, the third has a 6 stone Rottweiler with him. Which one is even a drug addled mugger most likely to stay clear of?
Halb said:
I was chatting to a friend of mine in the Armed Forces a while ago, we covered many topics and one was contracts and new kit; the aircraft carriers and other things. He explained to me the queue of cock-ups which allowed the aircraft carrier farce to happen, the reason behind it, and I just came away depressed. The lack of ability of middle management and civil servants just circle jerking themselves over other departments, writing crappy contract after contract pissing money away. Makes me wonder how anything gets done.
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...
Halb said:
Bluebarge said:
Hardly "squealing" sunshine. Just pointing out that the figure quoted by the antis is probably closer to the sum that will be sucked out of the Defence budget than the figure for the build costs of the boats that will carry the missiles. Yes, there are whole life costs for any kit but those have to be budgeted for and should be factored into spending plans, otherwise we end up with aircraft carriers with no aircraft (aka "ferries") or Trident subs that can be tracked leaving base because we have no maritime patrol aircraft to keep Russian subs at bay (aka "an SSN target").
I was chatting to a friend of mine in the Armed Forces a while ago, we covered many topics and one was contracts and new kit; the aircraft carriers and other things. He explained to me the queue of cock-ups which allowed the aircraft carrier farce to happen, the reason behind it, and I just came away depressed. The lack of ability of middle management and civil servants just circle jerking themselves over other departments, writing crappy contract after contract pissing money away. Makes me wonder how anything gets done.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff