The Strategic Defence Review (SDR) will assess the efficiency and effectiveness of Britain’s nuclear deterrent, but the government has reaffirmed its full commitment to maintaining and modernising the UK’s nuclear capability, Defence Minister Luke Pollard has confirmed.
“As stated in the Strategic Defence Review’s published Terms of Reference, the Government has a total commitment to the independent UK nuclear deterrent,” Pollard said.
He emphasised the government’s “triple lock commitment” to the deterrent, which includes the construction of four new Dreadnought-class submarines, the maintenance of the Continuous at Sea Deterrent (CASD), and the delivery of all future upgrades, including a replacement warhead.
Separately, Minister of State Maria Eagle confirmed that the government’s annual update to Parliament on the UK’s nuclear deterrent is in its final clearance stage and will be published “in due course”.
While the SDR will examine aspects of the nuclear programme, the government has consistently maintained that the nuclear deterrent remains a core pillar of national security, with no indication of a shift in policy.
Earlier this year, Emcube, Inc., based in Arlington, Virginia, has been awarded a £79,639,141 hybrid cost-plus-fixed-fee term and firm-fixed-price completion contract (N0003025C6009) for the Trident II D5 Strategic Weapon System and Dreadnought programmes.
As part of this contract, tasks to be performed include “systems engineering and training support, orientation and culture awareness training, security engineering, independent system safety and surety support, Trident training, leadership training for strategic systems programmes and field activities, ship submersible ballistic missile nuclear system support and Life Extension II, ship submersible guided nuclear support, acquisition support, and sea-launched cruise missile – nuclear system engineering support.”
This contract also benefits the United Kingdom, as part of a Foreign Military Sale (FMS) arrangement. The scope of work will be performed in various locations, including “Arlington, VA (60%); Washington, D.C. (20%); Kings Bay, Georgia (5%); Silverdale, Washington (5%); the United Kingdom (4%); Denver, Colorado (3%); Cape Canaveral, Florida (2%); and Pittsfield, Massachusetts (1%).”
Good news, but we need to start planning to reintroduce tactical nukes, presumably on a missile launched by Typhoons. Wonder if we can adapt FC/ASW or join France’s programme that they’re using to arm the Rafales?
Craig, it was never just the RAF that had tac nukes…the RN and the army had them too. Given the weakness of the army, perhaps they should get them first!
Different times, now tactical nukes only serve the purpose of an escalated response. With precision and smart weapons we have no need of naval tactical nuclear weapons.
If we want to take out a submarine we use a guided torpedo not a nuclear depth charge and if we want to shut down an air base we use PrSM or TLAM.
I would have thought RAF with a nuclear armed Storm Shadow would be the only real option. Unless they get the B61 fitted into a F35b; but would you want a US gravity bomb?
My understanding is that the sub sonic long range stealthy version of FC/ASW will form the basis of the new UK/German/European long range cruise missile. These weapons may be used for instance take out Russia’s nuclear weapons if it attacks say Ukraine with a nuclear weapon. For that reason it’s probably best to avoid having a nuclear armed version.
If Europe and the UK want a tactical capability I think an interim storm shadow conversion is ideal. It’s clearly already able to penetrate Russian air defences with little difficulty and can fit on Typhoon, Rafal and Gripen with little integration requirements.
With a 300Km range it’s threatening enough to deter the Russians without Moscow worrying about a nuclear sneak attack.
We eradicated long range nuclear cruise missiles for a very good reason. They are the most deadly weapons ever invented and with stealth capability they are even more deadly.
Hmmm…guess you will be an unqualified nyet on future UK deployment of SLCM-N across the RN (SSN-A, T-26 and/or T-31 classes)? Try to demonstrate a value-for-money pathway to an increased UK inventory, diversity (and thus resiliency) of weapons platforms, etc., and this is the response? Oh well, never fear, the USN will adopt this weapon across the fleet. 🤔😉
In 4 years it may be different, but for now, a non US tactical delivery system is the way to a second option for the UK deterrent.
Only a fool would give up the one thing that allows us to ignore the Russian sabre rattling.
For all of Putin’s bravado and history rewritting . He knows and his generals know, what will happen if he goes nuclear with the UK.
However I also think we need to consider our deterrent as part of a Europe wide nuclear shield. With the U.K. fleet and the French fleet combined that gives us eight boats.
As a member of NATO our shield already covers Europe! If trump withdraws his support it would then be down to us and the French to continue with it.
I certainly think it’s the assumption we should begin work on. Given British and French expertise in cruise missiles and nuclear weapons and Europe having boat loads of money this should be a pretty simple problem to solve.
Replacing the B61 with some sort of storm shadow derived cruise missile should be easy. Then we can share them with Germany, Poland, Sweden and Denmark. I doubt Belgium, Italy and the Netherlands now need them.
If Europe also contributes, that too might alleviate pressure on the core budget?
They want to shelter under it? Well pay up towards it.
Contribution and actual control are way different, though.
As Macron rightly said, control must remain sovereign.
Exactly.
If the UK could develop its own, then all sorts of others could contribute if they wish to benefit, and make it cost-neutral. Then and take it out of the conventional defence budget.
“Orientation and cultural awareness training”
That’s a new one on me.
Ahh, yes, perhaps a DEI initiative? Never before realized that there could be a ‘woke’ nuclear weapons strategy)policy. 🤔😱
If Hegseth finds out their might be a trans bomb the entire US DOE might be shut down over night 😀
I’m still worried they figure out it was the Democrats, British and Canadians that did the Manhattan project with a bunch of undocumented foreign university professors.
Worse still it was called after a Democratic City Borrow.
The US nuclear weapons program may not last much longer if they read a history book 😀
Can The Tangerine read a book?
I’m not certain he has the focus to read more than one page!
“…Democratic City Borrow”?? Further exposition required, please.
Manhattan was still considered to be part of the US during the 1940s. 😁
Could have been a “Lend Lease” project !
We should be joining up with France on the ASNG4 MBDA hypersonic scramjet air launched nuclear missile program, to add an air launched element to our deterrent so we have a sub strategic response separate from the SLBM boats and an extra arm to our deterrent.
Or building a 5th boat loaded with French missiles.
True but I’m sort of coming to the opinion that the Russian escalate to deescalate means that we may need a sub strategic option.. as a first warning shot as the French have.
French doctrine is that their ASMP force is there first to deliver a nuclear shot across the bows in the form of 100kts of sunshine somewhere it does not hurt to much, with you knowing the next step is the unloading of around 150-250 300Kt warheads and you not having a country left.
At present we don’t have that single 100kT shot.. because although we have variable yield warheads.. they would never waste a missile or risk the nuclear boat to fire one warhead…
I was always of the belief that not being able to engage in an escalate to deescalate situation reduced the chance of nuclear war..basically if they know your only response to a nuclear escalation is a full strategic country ending event… but now with Putin… I honestly think he needs that risk of a warning shot to make sure he does not go up the escalation ladder ( use a tactical nuc) to deescalate.
But I would stay away from tactical nucs we would just need a sub strategic option.
Has anyone heard of a report doing the rounds that says the US want in on the GCAP??