The UK Government has reaffirmed its commitment to the nuclear deterrent during Defence Secretary John Healey’s recent visit to a Vanguard-class submarine returning from patrol.
This marks Healey’s first official engagement in Scotland since taking office and highlights the government’s ongoing dedication to maintaining the country’s nuclear capabilities.
The government’s ‘triple lock’ includes three key promises:
- Building four new nuclear submarines at Barrow-in-Furness, which will support high-quality apprenticeships and jobs across the country.
- Maintaining a continuous at-sea deterrent to ensure protection for the UK and NATO allies, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.
- Delivering future upgrades to keep the submarines ready to patrol and protect national security.
During his visit, Healey expressed appreciation for the crew of 140 submariners and he reiterated the government’s commitment to the nuclear deterrent:
“Royal Navy submariners make extraordinary sacrifices to keep us all safe and it was an honour to thank the crew on behalf of the British people. As they return home, we salute their courage, dedication, and professionalism. Our new Government is unwavering in our commitment to our nuclear deterrent, maintained on behalf of the UK and our NATO allies. Our ‘triple-lock’ will safeguard Britain for generations to come.
As the home of our nuclear submarines and major shipbuilding yards, Scotland is central to UK defence. I am determined to make defence a foundation for jobs, growth and prosperity across Scotland.”
The mission, known as Operation Relentless, ensures that at least one nuclear-powered and armed submarine is always on patrol, deterring potential nuclear threats.
The Ministry of Defence said in a news release:
“The name of the vessel, length of patrol, and its location at sea are all closely guarded secrets. On board, only a select few are authorised to know where in the ocean depths they are operating, with the rest of the crew dutifully carrying out their roles unaware of their location.
It is this secrecy that makes the nuclear deterrent so effective. A potential enemy can never predict where a Vanguard Class is operating, making the cost of attacking the UK or NATO allies far outweigh the benefits.”
The UK has maintained a continuous nuclear deterrent for over 55 years, and preparations are underway at HM Naval Base Clyde for the new Dreadnought Class submarines, set to replace the Vanguard submarines by the 2030s.
I very much feel that four submarine with 12 missiles is no longer enough and blindly relying on MAD will not be sufficient in future.
We need to get our finger out on a UK ABM system and have more in the UK than just another radar and we probably need to consider at the very least upping the number of warheads we have to at-least equal the maximum capability of our delivery systems.
Buying an off the shelf ABM like Arrow 3 and simply increasing the number of warheads we have to match what our trident D5 can carry can be done for the low single digit billions which is very cost effective given the uplift in capability that would provide.
The new nuclear scenarios with Russia seem to revolve around the targeting of the UK with small number of lower yield nuclear weapons under the belief that the UK won’t fire back.
Arrow 3 would very much help to protect us in such a scenario and the Germans are only paying $3 billion so it’s not exactly a massive cost especially if it works in conjunction with the radars we are purchasing from LM.
You have noticed the new government seem to be going in the other direction Jim?
Cuts and in year savings. Where will the 3 billion come from for an ABM system?
The 2.5 % when the economy allows is usual HMG spin, from either party, that kicks cans down the road.
I’d have been happier if Healey had addressed the RFA falling apart and that our SSN are all along side rather than “distraction grandstanding” about what they have already confirmed several times but which might actually make the BBC news.
The government is full of money, tax rates are very high. It just chooses to spend in those that have political power- and not only political – .
Today RN have less frigates than once it had battleships.That is a choice not a sign of lack of resources.
Oh I agree Alex.
The UK is not a poor country, HMG makes it’s choices of what to support, and it didn’t take a genius to work out what a socialist government would put other people’s money.
Around 10 billion on public sector pay rises and 11 billion given away to help other nations fight climate change.
Defence? They have very little interest just like the Conservatives, until we get bitten.
Which we will.
HMG forecast to spend £1.22 Trillion this year, kind of puts a £22 billion “black hole” into comparison.
I agree.
And yet they’re referencing it at every opportunity as an excuse for tax rises and two tier Sir Kier talks the country down at every opportunity while wanting to create growth.
So if it impacts defence, which should be ringfenced after 33 years of cuts, it’s a massive issue regardless.
£22b black hole claim is straight out of Goebbels playbook. Tell a big bare faced lie and keep repeating it. Even the BBC has exposed the dishonesty.
But it is true that the UK has run budget deficits every year since 2000, even with the reduction of the proportion spent on defence.
Big bare faced lies are what conjob conservatives are best at, and you loved eating their crap for 14 years.
The money is still there, in UK oligarchs’ pockets, but you don’t want to tax them cos it’d be so unfair to deprive the insanely rich of their *cough* hard earned money 🤣
Who are these UK oligarchs that inhabit your fantasy world? And are you so innumerate as to believe that increasing taxes on the small number of the very wealthy would be enough to offset the chronic overspending of successive governments since 2001? Unless government succeeds in spending much more efficiently, increased costs will be borne by a sizeable part of the not wealthy UK population. That’s precisely why Starmer has orchestrated the budget black hole claim.
You know that the Government can just print money to pay for whatever it likes internally? They have to be a bit careful that where they chuck that money does not force inflation upwards but in reality the government never actually borrows money from the bank of England it just tells them to print some more. So both the Conservatives and Labour have been a bit economical with the truth over borrowing figures.
The Uk has run budget deficits for almost every year of its existence with some of the few surpluses being in the early 2000’s.
Wrong. 2000/1 was the last year of surplus. Net borrowing every year since.
Interesting that the year just happened to line up with Blair sticking to the previous govenments financial plan Peter!!
As unpopular as Majors government was, in it’s last few years in office, unemployment fell sharply, govenment debt and borrowing also steadily fell year on year, along with great annual GDP growth.
Blair was handed a set of books in very good health….
But Labour do what they always do, put their foot down on spending, net result, by 2010 we were flat broke, with no financial reserves.
Blair gambled it all on a steady world economy and it blew up in his face. Not that it bothered him, he had already buggered off before the shit hit the fan.
Odious individual….
Now we’re got that idiot back whispering sweet nothings into U turn ear….
How long l wonder before Blair becomes an official advisor, or is given a ministerial position….
Oh yes that’s just like the Brexit bus claim, the constant repetition (see above) of two tier kier and stop the boats etc. etc. !!! You do understand that this is the same don’t you?
Two tier Keir ( note the correct spelling) is in insult. £22b black hole is a lie. Do you understand the difference?
The Brexit Bus claim was also a lie… Different Government different lies. But lies all the same.
Agree, as I said few of us are happy about it, let’s see what happens in October.
Let’s help others .What’s that Harland and Wolfe you need help a part of UK ship building needs help .So sorry the needs of our union backers and Africa are more important ,than your ability to employ and train future ship builders. Our suggestion is Ship building too much work, Rubber dinghy safer bet .That way cuts out the people smugglers ,and the Government pockets the fare money .God I’m being sarcastic. But this Government is about too hit your pockets hard ,but Defence will be the first too miss out ,
👍.
Yes but it spends a similar percentage of its national product as when it had those battleships and all its competitors face the same issue.
Britain has always spent between 2 and 3% of GDP on defence in peace time excluding the Cold War when it didn’t have any battleships.
That’s not correct. In 1960 it was 7%, in 1984 it was 5.5%.
Jim said excluding the Cold War…
Yea but that is somewhat the point. Since the end of the Cold War Politicians have been making hay with the non existent “Peace Dividend.” We haven’t been at peace yet we have cut the Defence budget by 50-75% depending on how far you want to go back.
Read what I wrote, Cold War started in 1948
That is true, but the real-terms cost of warships of all types is very different to the battleship era. e.g. the last RN battleship- Vanguard- cost ~£11.5 million in 1941, which is about £500 million in today’s money. Escorts of the time would cost a fraction as much. By contrast, T45 or T26 both cost > £1 billion each.
Hi Ian,
I don’t know the cost of a 15″ shell but I bet it was somewhat less than the £1,000,000 per shot for some missiles used in NATO, even in today’s money…
It is the relative cost of the equipment that is such a killer for defence budgets. I have a feeling that this is the real reason why the West is struggling to arm Ukraine effectively.
As an engineer and former defence analyst I often wondered if there is not some way to improve the cost profile of modern military equipment. For the UK there is the general productivity issue which is amplified in the defence industry by small quantity orders making investment in automated production lines just too expensive per unit delivered.
Then there is the thingy being produced. My first question is how much gold plating is there? Do we actually use the nice to have features? Even if we do, is having more of something more in important than than the nice to have feature? How expensive is the nice to have feature?
There needs to be a mindset change. Capability today is dominated by how Gucci the tech is… range, accuracy, etc. Perhaps if we included speed of manufacture and quantity of resources to build the kit we might actually get something that does the job well enough and can be produced in sufficient numbers to keep doing the job in a realistic attritional war. I would also point out that all wars are attritional to some extant, manoeuvre warfare aims to attrit an enemy by putting them at such a disadvantage that they loose cohesion – see Fance 1940… As such resupply is as important as gucci kit or the best trained troops even and resupply is looking somewhat week at the moment. Cost seems to be the significant driver.
Cheers CR
Yes, the cost of the (consumable) ordnance is also much greater in real terms. The cost of platforms has been outpacing general CPI or RPI inflation since WWII- as I suspect you’re aware, the real-terms cost of each generation of platform is typically about double the previous one- resulting in the number of units ordered being halved in order to keep costs under control. This is down to the ‘gold plating’: In order to gain a qulaitative advantage over an adversary it is necessary to develop ‘bleeding edge’ tech that is not yet in general use with the corresponding economies of scale. While we can’t handle any attrition at all, the Russians have clearly gone the other way and accepted shoddy kit for the sake of a quantitative advantage on a limited budget- ultimately subsidised with the blood of their own troops. There is presumably an optimum balance of quality versus quantity in procurement, but I’m b*****ed if I know what it is.
Hi Ian,
I have been thinking a bit more about this. Part of the reason for the increased cost is the ever developing kill chain. Kill Chains in WW2 were relatively simple to start with.
In the Battle of the River Plate it all came down to the mark 1 eyeball and ‘simple’ optical devices. Spot the smoke on the horizon and close in and shoot. By the time you get to the Hunt for Bismark the Kill Chain is relying on aircraft, radar and the eyeball, but the shooting was limited by how far you could see.
Fast forward to today and the kill chains are even longer and way more complex and can go way beyond the horizon. The increased complexity is where the cost comes in, obviously. To a certain extent there is nothing you can do about that trend, it’s the old sword leads to shield and armour debate. However, I think there is something that can be done within the limits of the technological arms race, but it would be a combination of things right across the procurement and support chains, including the end users accepting the 80% solution. As Watson-Watt put it, “Give them the third best to go on with; the second best comes too late, the best never comes.” In the case of Chain Home radar network never a truer word…
In the words of the Royal Marines recruitment ad, “It’s a state of mind”.
A system wide change in mindset to accept what works and make the best of it is needed. Capability is not just about having the best kit. The Dowding AD system relied on a third best radar system that worked and a basic but very effective Command and Control system. The system, along with Lord Beverbrook building fighters instead of bombers, meant that whole thing worked just well enough, as history proved.
Current Western kit works very well indeed, but as Ukraine is demonstrating there is just not enough of it…
Cheers CR
In 1944 it took around 500 bombers to get one 500 pound bomb on target. Now one bomber can comfortably get 10 or more weapons in target.
Missiles cots $1 million but it’s one missile one hit, battleships took hundreds of shells to get the same effect and at a fraction of the range.
Got to factor in the 2000 bodies required on the ship many of whom were there to hoist shells around.
Upfront cost low running costs high
I have not seen them say anything on ABM or increasing warheads, everything coming out now is just noise as everything beyond a few basics like CASD has been left to the review. Currently they are playing the David Cameron 2010 tell everyone how much of a black hole there is and blame it on the last lot.
I’m not happy about this nor are many more on the inside. Will it last I can’t say to be honest I hope not, I can’t see Robertson’s review being a mass cutting exercise like 2010 but the treasury is very much in the driving seat.
It’s certainly looking like the army has made the case though.
That being said the doom and gloom bunch that had labour being run by Corbyn and the CND in the backround have very much been proven wrong. Labour has already publicly backed several nuclear deals and more appear on the cards both civilian and military.
I cannot see it being a mass cuts exercise either.
But how can any SDSR have any credibility at all without a guaranteed long term budget?
This is just another HMT cuts exercise which I hope will target programs rather than numbers.
But seeming as HMG ALWAYS puts industry before the military I remain worried.
I suppose in the end it’s because when you are talking about the wars that really matter, the existential war in which one side grinds another down to giving up through strategic, political and economic exhaustion ( the napoleonic wars, World War One, World War Two and the cold war) the armed forces you start with are in essence a bit irrelevant and will not be the armed forces you have at the end ( essentially and to be blunt those armies will have been used up and replaced). What really decides those wars ( and in no particular order):
1) industrial capabilities ( including access to raw materials)
2) Economic strength ( including finical reserves, ability to generate revenue and access to markets)
3) political will ( that is both the populations will to suffer and follow the leaders and the leaders will to keep fighting as the population suffers)
4) population numbers…to maintain and replace your fighting forces/armies and support your industrial capacity and economy..
so basically if we look at every major ( existential war) the UK has been in at the beginning our armed forces were almost always overmatched and got their arses handed to them…what allowed the UK to come out on top was with its allies, overwhelming industrial capacity, access to populations, markets and economic opportunities…and at the same time due to our geostrategic position ( cutting access to the rest of the world) we could strangle our enemies industrial and economic capabilities…
so in the longer term it’s always industrial capacity that wins you the important war…in truth the main and most important role of your standing armed forces is first to be a deterrent to war ever happing ( the look at my big
stick approach to diplomacy) and to ensure the nation survives any initial strike to allow it to lever and fight with its full industrial, economic, population and political power….the Ukraine Russia war is a great example of this..
clearly you then have the minor wars and activities related to interest..but they are different drivers and needs.
You have said before, Jonathan, it is cheaper to fund defence and deter than to fight a war and ruin yourself.
Clearly politicians of both main parties in this country are utterly clueless to that logic.
They need to prioritise the military we have, not the shareholders of MIC companies or industrial jobs.
Indeed, personally I would be doing both, the world is heading down the toilet and the longer we can help stave it off the better..but unfortunately I do think we will be fighting that war at some point…I think the war with china is inevitable in the end and we will need all the industrial base we can develop ( china is throwing money at its industrial base like it’s going out of fashion).
My fear is things escalate in the Middle East and some mental mullah in Iran does something stupid i.e. a dirty bomb or tactical nuke on Israel. We all know how Israel will respond.
I think the Chinese are both politically astute and patient – playing the long game. They let their “enemies” destroy each other, militarily, economically and perhaps mot importantly socially. Look at illegal migration in Europe and USA. Throw in a minority of Muslim fundamentalist and the consequences are self evident.
The Chinese don’t really need to go to war – its literally right out of the the art of war by Sun Tzu.
To be honest klonkie china will go to war over Taiwan, generally in the west we simply don’t understand how important Taiwan is to china. They are not going to ever let it go. Xi will go to war to reunite his nation..if they think they will get reunification without war they will do that, but if it looks like Taiwan is not playing ball it will invade and if any nation supports Taiwan directly during that invasion china will see it as cases belli.
Well said DM – better a lean piece than a fat victory as the adage goes. Sadly, rarely are the lessons if history considered, understood or applied.
It’s rarely been our peace time military that has won us wars and more often our treasury and the ability to borrow.
That being said making statements like spending 2.5% on defence when we can afford it is very reminiscent of the 1930’s.
That being said our potential enemies are in a really bad state and getting worse.
Agreed…
To put the cost of war into context the, UK spent over 50% of GDP on defence during WW2 – times were definitely tough. WW2 was the most expensive war in our modern history and WW1 was only just slightly less. Both of these dedwarfed any previous cost of war – enter the age of industrialised warfare.
A Google search on, “uk defence spending as percentage of gdp since 1900, and look for a website call UK Public Spending. It will bring up an interesting set of charts going right back to John Churchill…
It is also interesting to note that our defence spending is currently close to the peacetime norm… Shame we are entering a pre-war period.
Cheers CR
I’m more worried the other way round that they put the short term perceived military needs (army) over industry (tempest, ship building)
The long term budget should be secured in that 2% is guaranteed and 2.5% is cross party aspiration. There does not seem to be any massive over hanging project like MRA4 worth cutting and it looks clear that even though the army has managed to get a general on the panel there won’t be an increase in army numbers.
All of that should mean it’s nothing like 2010 or 2015 but I am nervous, defence reviews are never good.
I abandoned any hope of a sensible, capability-led review when I was told that the Treasury was being kept regularly informed of the review’s progress.For a genuine capability-led review the Treasury only needs to be involved in the sense of knowing how much extra money it is to be instructed to allocate.
That’s very subjective, it’s pretty easy to argue our security has increased since 2022 now that Russia has been shown to be a joke. If you go into a review insisting the budget must increase with no evidence basis you can hardly be said to be conducting a proper review. Any review should not be capability lead but based on the threats scenarios and security situation.
To be honest when it comes to a nuclear exchange ABMs are essentially irrelevant..it’s not really possible to stop a meaningful attack by strategic weapons…even the vaunted U.S. ground based interceptors would likely on manage a handful of warheads intercepts and for that capability the US will have spent close to 100 billion dollars.
in all likelihood we will not hear anything about warheads deployed as HMG does not disclose operational warhead numbers deployed…maybe if it all got very hot HMG may decide on a full disclosure of numbers as a deterrent move..after all each trident can carry 14 warheads so there is a lot of scope with a stockpile of 225 warheads…and the UK Could easily move to a deterrent that if used as a counter value strike could easily obliterate every Russian city of more than 1 million people.
The warhead expansion was announced by BJ? Assume that will continue, assuming the problems at AWE can be overcome?
at present it’s still on HMGs web sites that the plan is up to 260 warheads..but and this is the big but, there was never a firm number given or a firm date.
one of the things I hope they change is the 2021 defence review policy of ambiguous of numbers operational and numbers deployed..to me that smacks of weakness, a deterrent only works if you blatantly wave it in front of your enemies eyes, making sure they can see it and that it is available to use.
If you consider there are around 16 cities in Russia with over 1 million population, put all those cities at risk essentially means you can destroy Russia as a meaningful state. You would want to ensure you could destroy answer hold at risk Moscow and at Petersburg with a large strike, then one warhead for each of the other 14 cities..so 25 warheads would see the Russian state essentially ended in a meanful way for a generation..50 essentially removes every city and town with a population over 350,000 and probably removes the Russian state from history If HMG went for 12 trident with 4 warheads each..that’s a major deterrence.
one thing I do think that needs to be considered is the likely detection risk of SSBNs moving into the 2050s and so HMG probably needs to consider moving to a second type of deterrent, understanding that the dreadnoughts may be the last SSBN generation.
What 2nd type of deterrent would not be vulnerable to a surprise 1st strike if it is not hidden in the ocean on a sub?
Vehicle mounted like some Russian systems? Dispersed around the country? That will get the 5th column in the UK excited. Trident convoys cannot move as it is without “peace” activists reporting their every move.
I think that will be the big question for deterrence in the 2050s. In 2020 The Australian national security college did a great paper on transparent oceans by the 2050s will mean that detection of SSBNs would be “likely” even with a growth in counter detection technology..without that growth ( so a dreadnought launched now) detection becomes extremely likely.
What a lot of the papers are saying is that SSBN survivability will move to the chase and kill elements as in the 2050s they will have to assume they are found..so that means greater speed and greater protection ( essentially what the USSR did with its SSBNs in the Cold War, which was throw an entire navy around them in a bastion.)
For a nation without an easy bastion ( like the Uk) or a vast navy like the U.S. SSBNs may become to difficult to defend at some point after the 2050s to guarantee a second strike capability.infact post 2050 UK may have to accept the cost of a triad if it wants a realistic second strike deterrent.
A bastion. The Irish sea?
Poole Harbour? Off Milford Haven!
Irish Sea surely.
The only issue with the Irish Sea as a bastion is Ireland…it would be a bastion with the gates on one side wide open and it’s a very very shallow sea…we will have to see, but I would bet good money on the UK going for a different deterrent mix after the next generation of SSBNs are retired.
Ha. Very true!
Road mobile would be a major night mare, air launched on a permanent rotated patrol could work but that’s very risky.
SSBN’s maybe even SSBK’s operating in bastions in the Irish Sea would be the only option. This Chinese do this now in the Yellow Sea.
The other option is floating silos on the sea floor. The US experimented with this in the Cold War.
Ah, Jim. Just suggested the Irish Sea before I read this. Seal off both ends? Friendly territory either side?
Assume it’s not deep at all, I have no idea, but enough for a bomber to hide in IF new “cloaking” type devices are possible to hide it and the wake from satellite observation?
But if that tech is possible, maybe no need for a bastion?
Yes either that or the West Coast of Scotland. It might be possible to detect them by satellite but in territorial water with the proper defences it can still be survivable.
In 50 years having our entire nuclear arsenal drifting quietly unprotected in international waters might seem like a very strange and risky concept.
It’s more likely that we will move to a bastion type position in the Irish Sea if SSBN’s become detectable than land based. Building silos in the UK is almost impossible and road mobile launchers are increasingly useless in the face of SAR satellites.
Given the major reduction in deployed Russian warheads since the Cold War and NATO’s nuclear counter force capability even in an all out nuclear war ABM systems may prove worth while as it’s possible the Uk would only be receiving a handful of nuclear warhead’s targeted at it. Russia would have to target all of NATO and may only have a few hundred weapons deployed that haven’t been destroyed.
In a far more likely scenario where Russia wants to target a significant NATO member with a limited strike to send a message ABM is invaluable. Either way it’s worth us spending a few billion and we can’t rely on German or US missiles solely. We need our own.
Russia was practicing this extraction scenario in 2022 before the war.
Hi Jim the problem is intercepting even a handful of warheads from an ICBM is a vast expense task, as I noted the US are spending north of 100billion dollars on a ground based interceptor system that will at best intercept a handful of warheads…the simple reality is to reliably intercept a ICBM warhead you need an exoatmospheric kill vehicle launched by a multistage orbital booster..and as each ICBM can have up to 10+ warheads and many many penetration aids you need a huge number of orbital boosters to counter one icbm…which means it’s simply better to invest 20 billion in a deterrent than 100billion in a shield that can only stop at best a couple of ICBMs.
The difference is the US is trying to defend a continent with mid course intercept. If you have a small enough area to protect you can even directly attack a MIRV and it doesn’t need to be exo atmospheric.
Remember as well ICBM’s fired at shorter range are slower and easier to intercept.
Much if this is in line with the debate we had about Polaris being effective against Moscow ABM systems in the 80’s.
Yeah, the U.S Ohio class boats for example, carry 20 tridents each…
Sidenote, some Ohio’s were converted to SSGNs, and converted to 22 tubes, each fitting 4 tomahawks, for 154 total! Compared to the 6 tubes in Astute….
Yes, but comparisons to the USA, and China, are not helpful?
The UK is a major power, but a medium one at that. France, Germany, Japan are the ballpark we should be comparing to.
Our boats used to carry 16 missiles, but reduced to 12 as a token effort at ‘arms control’.
It’s really the number of warheads that matter and is it enough to shatter a few key Russian cities. To be brutal if you can destroy Moscow and st Petersburg you have essentially gutted Russia as a nation to the extent Russia will go with MAD against the entire west and get MAD back.
Hard to say in an oligarch Russia run by a single man if that’s still the case.
Our deterrent has never been a MAD deterrent, it’s alway essential been a deterrent that would trigger a MAD exchange.It creates such ambiguity that it works..
if Russia launches an attack on the Uk and it triggers a UK strategic response. You would get the following occure..
1) Russia would not really know which power had launched the strike ( it could be any NATO power responding…Russia would know that it was a likely counter force attack or a risk of counter force or an attack on its major cities..because of this Russia would be a shattered nation after the attack..
2) because of that Russias only real option would be to undertake a full counterforce strike against the whole of NATO…
3) The US would know that once a western strategic arsenal was fired at Russia it would go for a full counterforce strike against the whole of the west..and would maybe not even wait for conformation of a full Russian launch…instead it would possibly try and counterforce first.
Basically if one nation launches a ballistic missile submarines arsenal at another nuclear power it will almost inevitably will trigger MAD..as a nation cannot survive as a “power” after a ballistic missile submarine off loads its arsenal and Russia would make sure everyone went down with it…
The only reason they were converted was the alternative was to scrap them due to the START provisions. The USN had to lose 4 SSBN Ohios, so the 4 oldest were converted to SSGN, they decommission over the next 2 years.
Astute isn’t far off the TLAM capacity of the Virginia or later Los Angeles Boats, we just don’t use VLS but have a much bigger bomb room.
FYI the SSN(A) will have VLS as US isn’t continuing to develop new tube launched TLAM.
indeed the bigger bomb room and 6 tubes instead of 4.
Exactly Astute is much closer to Sea wolf than Virginia and no one doubts Sea Wolf for not having VLS. The bigger torpedo room gives more flexibility. In a hot war against China torpedoes may be more useful than TLAM.
Those particular Ohios are on their last legs though – the oldest is nearly 45 year ago. Cant be much life left in them.
OOS in next 2 years.
Thanks Mate!
Only 8 of the 16 tubes on the Vanguard’s are operational, so 12 is arguably an increase. Cutting out a 4-tube common missile compartment reduced the length and displacement of the Dreadnought’s, allowing them to fit in to the DDH and use maintenance and dockyard facilities designed and built for the Vanguard’s, also it presumably saves several £/$ billions. If the Dreadnought’s only carry 8 Trident II missiles, there has been speculation that the remaining 4 tubes might be packed with cruise missiles and one-way drones. That’s unlikely due to the resulting conflict with their primary role. Also the design of SSN-A includes VL tubes, and the RN’s stockpile of suitable missiles is always likely to be in the dozens rather than hundreds.
Trouble with ABM is that they can becoverwhelmed
Hi Jim
Firstly no country on Earth has an effective ABM system that can defend against a Tier 1 enemy attacking with modern strategic ICBM or SLBM, simple reason is the cost is unimaginably high.
Don’t get confused by a reasonably effective layered system that can deal with Cruise Missiles, Aircraft, simple single warhead IRBM (Iran, Pakistan, N Korea, Houthi etc) and the system that would be required to deal with a volley of MIRV Armed ICBMs.
It’s just the lure of “ABM system”, it’s a lovely political sound bite for the uneducated, who latch onto the Israeli system as a placebo for realistic defence.
THAAD, SM3, Patriot and Arrow3 can deal with a simple single target intercept in the Exo Atmosphere. They don’t stand a cat in hells chance of dealing with a MIRV armed missile, to fast, to high and way too many targets.
Secondly (and as an explanation for point 1), stuffing our D5 to the max with Warheads is actually a waste of space and money. A Trident missile with just 3 warheads is a hell of a massive stick and a very credible deterrent to any sane person (if they are insane nothing will deter them).
As an operational weapon system it relies on the (3 ?) Warheads actually hitting the target and it ensures that by manoeuvring and by the (7, 9, 12 ?), dummy decoy systems doing likewise. Those decoys are important as success is all a numbers game as the combined number of warheads and decoys far exceeds the number of defensive systems available.
It’s that which actually makes more warheads pointless as it reduces the number of decoys (US has only 44 interceptors and the cost is mind boggling). FYI the US and probably then Russian system aren’t intended to deal with each others ICBMs, but the odd lunatic with a larger version of the simpler missiles.
Thirdly the whole idea of deterrence relies on the enemy being 100% certain that we can obliterate them, and the reason they know it will work is because they have done exactly the same thing.
Bottom line is the best use of £3 billion for a limited system is to use it to protect the Clyde from conventional weapons so we can maintain our CASD.
Better still stop messing around and buy the 5th Boat that ensures we can maintain a 2 boat patrol. That way they have 2 boats to try and find and 24 D5 with 72 Warheads and 168 decoys heading their way.
When your politicians react to Israel the deterrence is approaching zero.
Although it’s worth noting that at present no one apart from the US has any ABM system that can reliably intercept a warhead from an intercontinental range ballistic missile so all those penetration aids are almost redundant as Russia retired the 51T6 missile, which was their only ABM with an exoatmospheric kill vehicle. They still have a pretty robust intermediate range level ABM system with an E endo atmospheric kill vehicle with a nuclear warhead…but I don’t think that will intercept much in the intercontinental range ( Russia claims I could stop 1 ICBM)
“THAAD, SM3, Patriot and Arrow3 can deal with a simple single target intercept in the Exo Atmosphere. They don’t stand a cat in hells chance of dealing with a MIRV armed missile, to fast, to high and way too many targets.”
Broadly agree with your comment but the US has demonstrated on multiple occasions that they can hit an ICMB is it’s coasting phase. This is generally considered the best time to intercept them as far as I understand, it is “easier” to discriminate between warhead and decoy against the cold background of space. They have even done this with the SM-3 which undoubtedly raised eyebrows in Moscow and Beijing when you consider that the SM-3s are available in the hundreds in the US arsenal. Yes the US ABM system currently has no chance against a salvo that would come from Rus or Chi in an all out attack but both of these countries are modernizing their nuclear arsenal and Russian arms control officials years ago stated publicly that Russia was modernizing due to the belief that it’s only a matter of time before the US makes a technological breakthrough in ICBM defence.
Off course it also depends on how many weapons actually get off the ground. Trident D5 in a nuclear counter force strike role as well as US and UK hunter killer submarines might take out a very large chunk of strategic nuclear weapons before launch.
Yes they have but only when they pick the optimum scenario to suit the intended outcome. In other words it was launched from Vandenberg and aimed to conveniently go over Kwajalein and present a perfect target. I’m not negating that achievement but it had far more to do with securing a budget than a realistic defence. It’s impossible to pre position the interceptors to deal with multiple missiles coming from multiple directions using a land based system.
I do however think that the SM3 being forward deployed on F15/18 is a very interesting proposition as are the ABM capable AB destroyers.
Agreed. I think it’s fair to say that anti ICBM is in it’s infancy right now, but based on the success of ABM in the red sea and Israel I do think military planners are already envisioning a day when ICBM success in no longer guaranteed and the frightening implications this will have on Mutually Assured Destruction.
In reality the only effective ABM system is the Ground based interceptors and although a quite amazing system the final 100billion dollar bill to protect against essentially one or two ICBMs is not really cost effective. Far better to spend the 100billion on guaranteed destruction in return…it’s just the US has the money to do both the same time.
I’m all for the 2 boat patrol and proper air defences on the Clyde. On the ABM question my point is that in most real world scenarios the UK won’t be facing hundreds of targets but a few dozen or less and depending on how this plays out there is every chance these won’t be ICBM’s with MIRV’s launching in from Siberia but IRBM’s from Eastern Europe/western Russia or SLBM’s on a short trajectory. These are weapons that current ABM systems can deal with. Russia is not the Soviet Union, it can’t just go out and build thousands more weapons and the UK is not the USA, we are not strategically significant enough to change their nuclear weapons posture for if we suddenly deploy an ABM.
ABM systems are improving and our ability to conduct nuclear counter force is also improving. These two factors coupled with relatively small nuclear weapon stockpiles means ABM is almost inevitable it’s just a question of when.
The UK is small and dense which means it’s the most vulnerable country in the world to nuclear war. But that small size and density also makes it the most easy to defend with ABM systems of any major power.
We have a current program to do this we are just not actually doing it at any great speed.
I have doubts that even with the enormous cost of CAD, it is sufficient to guarantee that no one would risk attacking UK with nuclear weapons- its one and only purpose. To be more certain, we need to be able to inflict proportionally similar levels of destruction to those we might suffer. As a small, densely populated country, we would therefore logically need to have far more missiles/warheads than a large thinly populated country like Russia. Russia though damaged by our current arsenal would survive. We wouldn’t survive theirs.
It is unaffordable to increase the SSBN fleet though using all the tubes with the maximum number of warheads should be achievable. But is that enough? India has land based missiles but is now also developing an SSBN capability. The USA is modernizing all three elements of its nuclear Triad. France still has air launched nuclear weapons and SSBNs, having retired all land based missiles.
So the best option for UK might be a long range air launched missile, stealthy enough to penetrate defences and able to be launched far away from enemy territory.
In theory, ABM defence for a small country like UK ought to be easier than defending a much larger country. But the US has spent $300b on its ABM defence and it isn’t very effective.
Increasing our deterrent threat looks to be the most affordable and effective option.
It’s worth noting real world scenarios, even in an unimaginable UK Russia nuclear exchange that somehow didn’t involve the USA it’s not like Russia can fire every weapon it has at the UK.
The US and or china would glass them in a second if they had nothing left.
In most real worlds scenario’s the vast majority of Russian weapons would be targeting the USA and the rest of NATO not the UK.
Russia only needs to use a small part of its nuclear arsenal to destroy UK completely. Whilst an exchange between UK/Russia only might seem unlikely, it is possible, and that is why our deterrent needs to be credible on its own. Would the USA attack Russia in pursuit of Article 5 if it had only targeted UK?
Maybe. But maybe is a risk. If we were fully confident that the USA would risk its own destruction to retaliate for an attack on the UK, we wouldn’t need our own deterrent.
Absolutely! I would agree on every single point you made. That’s one of the reasons why we should support Israel to some extent. Reducing the number of missile tubes was a mistake showing a lack of strategic thinking.
Has HMS Agamemnon been rolled and floated yet? That was expected in April/May but I’ve not heard anything. If she’s still stuck in the Devonshire Dock Hall there’s little chance of her commissioning this year as planned, and it will also delay the start of the assembly of Valiant, which needs her slot. The UK’s SSN/SSBN construction times have become ridiculous – 20 years has become become the norm, including long lead items such as the reactor which are ordered about 5 years before the boat is ceremonially laid down. Hopefully AUKUS is starting to shake things up big time, the first RN SSN-A boat will have to be built start to finish in under 13 years to meet promises made to the Australian’s – who are chipping A$4.6 billion (!!!) to its design, industry upgrades and construction. They will reasonably want value for money.
Hi RB, I can’t disagree with much about what, but I think you need to divorce the Glacial delivery of the Astutes from what the industry can actually achieve. In industry and business the customer is paramount and if the customer will only pay x£ each year for xyears then that’s what they will get. Same thing as the T26, the build rate is determined by the contractual staged payments.
The entire industry has been starved of orders, financial investment and a clarity of purpose. HMG spun the 7 Astutes out as long as was possible due to too many projects all needing a steady flow of money, only way to get all of them is delay, delay and delay.
I was involved in part of the industry for over 40 years here in Derby and watching what’s going on is like nothing I could ever dream of. Massive expansion of the Derby site (its doubling in size), new training facilities, offices, systems of work, warehousing, machinery and renewed / replaced infrastructure, 00’s of new apprentices being taken on. The money is being sensibly spent and at a pace not seen since my late uncles time in the 50’s and early sixties.
Same is going on up at Barrow, SFM in Sheffield, HMNB Clyde, Babcock in Guz and Rosyth. It’s right the way through the supply chain, maintenance and even into the decommissioning process.
Very fair point about the spinning out of the Astute’s If I recollect correctly the NAO assessed over a decade ago that the MOD could have got the originally planned eight Astute’s for the same price as it was paying for seven – if it hadn’t stretched out deliveries to save some money in the short-term.
I do wonder if we will actually see a really significant SSN order as in 12 taking it back to the Cold War numbers..
I’m pretty sure we will never see 12 RN SSN’s again and it’s not just down to cost. The SSN(A) will be our 4th generation of SSN and its capability will be far in excess of the 1st and 2nd generations.
We also now have to take into account that the U.K Nuclear Naval industry has to be able to build most if not all of the Nuclear propulsion system for 8 RAN boats as well as our own and maintain them. That’s the Elephant in the room which no one is sharing in public, but how do we refit and maintain those boats and what happens when they go OOS ?
I’m pretty certain the overall numbers to be produced has already been scoped out and agreed at a very high level.
That idea is nothing to do with announcements (which haven’t been made) but the actions that are ongoing.
HMG has a very long History of buying the Cart and Horse but not thinking about Stables, Shoes, Vets or Blacksmiths. But from what we see going on at HMNB Clyde, Rosyth and Devonport it seems “the times they are a changing”.
And IMHO that all points to the capability to support a much larger fleet of boats than our existing one (even taking into account the RAN ones).
We need to think of the future build programme as a 30 year Cycle of production, maintenance and eventual disposal. And it has to be sustainable so that it can hot roll over into the next cycle.
The complications are that the production of the SSN(A) cannot take up all of the 30 year cycle as we will need 6/8 years to deliver the Dreadnought replacements.
So to achieve optimum cost efficiency for both SSN(A) customers and ensure sustainability for industry my guess is for a production run of 18 including 10 for the RN. Which is exactly what 1SL has stated he wants.
To do that we need a Drumbeat of 15 months for the reactor sections and 26/28 months for our own SSN(A).
When it all comes to fruition I wouldn’t be surprised to see a RN boat emerge from the DDH followed by an assembled Hull section with the reactor and Turbo Electric system in situ.
The lovely thing about the AUKUS treaty is that once the production cycle is announced our beloved Politicians ability to fiddle with it is restricted.
Reason is if we worked the costs out based on say 18 (10/8) which gives a cost of £Y, our partner would go ballistic if we cancelled 2 as their boats now cost £Y++.
FYI yes you are correct that if HMG had spent the budget in a logical way we could have had 8 for the cost of 7. Fact is that if the Astutes had been ordered to follow on from the Vanguards on hot lines we could have bought 10.
The costs and delays caused by gapping for 7 years and then having to re build the industry was over £4 billion.
This post gives me some hope re our SSN force being rebuilt. Where did you hear/read of 1SL wanting 10?
It is a bit late the change their mind as the first boat is well into the construction phase.
Looking forward to seeing them coming out of the Devonshire Dock Hall about a mile from me here in Barrow.
What’s people’s thoughts on John Healey?
Not particularly impressed.
Not seen a peep from him about the RFA falling apart but he’s eager to do his bit with the HMG spin doctors turning up and grandstanding after a 6 month CASD patrol to look mean and serious with hands on hips. I wouldn’t mind that if only he’d also address some of the issues at hand and what he’s doing about it.
Has tempered his complaints about Pacific Tilts and non NATO area ops now missiles fly in the Red Sea and he’s actually in the hot seat.
Seeming as he was in HMT when the cuts were underway in the 2000s, I’m not particularly impressed when he talks of hollowed out armed forces as his government instigated much of it.
Helpless like all the rest with Starmer and Reeves, and was happy to try to get Corbyn into Downing Street.
So, not a lot.
Same, he was on Radio 4 earlier this week, and you guessed it, there will be cuts ‘or tough choices’ on defence. His background in union journalism makes him a baffling choice for this position and it’s clear he has no vision or understanding of geo politics, simply a cog in the political machine to do as he’s told and apply dutifully to whatever dept he was handed, in this case defence. He’s not a force of nature that will not push back or get into any weeds and clear them. We have the worst case scenario in a defence chief. Clearly Labour will never meet the pledge of 2.5% and will only claim to be on a path towards it, there will be no energy and vision to sort out the RFA, or any other part of the RN that requires vertical reform from top to bottom, he’s just a man in a suit, not meeting the moment, but just getting through it. Conservatives were awful on everything but I credit Ben Wallace as a person who did more and cared more and understood more.
Let’s throw the cat among the pigeons. I cannot see any party increasing the number of SSBNs. Same with the 7 Astutes but what about looking at Diesel Electric subs? There will those among you that will immediately deride this but the bottom line is that unless the RN can dramatically increase its ability to recruit more personnel across all platforms – subs, ships etc PLUS the RFA – then calls for additional subs is meaningless. They will just sit idling in a dock somewhere. The German and Swedish diesel electrics require a crew of between 30 – 36 and could conceivably be used to patrol areas out into the North Atlantic etc freeing up the Astutes for CSG work and further afield. Banging on about acquiring expensive new platforms is unrealistic in today’s world. It will never get past the Treasury or either party no matter how much political BS there is about defending the Realm. Politicians have no idea what that really means. The sad reality is that we are not going to see a dramatic rise in recruitment numbers for any branch unless 1) basic pay is increased and 2) housing conditions etc are properly addressed. All naval platforms in the pipeline need to work on drastically reduced crew numbers leveraging both automation and AI. Just a few thoughts.
Labour have said this week they are going to make some tough choices on defence spending . They are looking to cut projects and mostlikely reduce defence spending in real terms . This submarine news may be the goid news before the bad unfortunately
Based on the current “success ” rate of BAE building late and over budget ships that spend a lot of time in dry dock having broken down during trials,don’t hold your breath…
I am nearly 70.
I might get to read about the first one exiting from Barrow in Furness or Rosyth and running aground but I think they would be better employed either filling in the £22 billion black hole or giving it to third world countries to wate in another way.
If I live long enough…
Great news
I’m proud to be a infantry veteran How’s relent on our our forces in arms to provide support
You know the first of class build program is already underway, right?
So winter fuel for the elderly has been ceased 3/4 of the country struggling to pay the bills and what we do? We buy more war toys …. This is not the government that I voted to look after us …