Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to join our community
Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site, connect with other members through your own private inbox and will receive smaller adverts!

Brown in favour of updating Trident!!!

jonwilly wrote:

Gents please tell me just WHO Britian is going to nuc.

Potentially? Iran, N Korea, Pakistan (If the fundamentalists ever took charge) Syria and lets not forget France.....

We would Nuke anyone who tried to nuke us Jon, or if a terrorist group ever attacked us with a nuke, Mecca would make an excellent retaliatory target!
 
Funny as it is, that episode makes a very good point.

The power of an SLBM system is such that it makes it very nearly unthinkable for any sane person to contemplate using it.

Equally, any sane person on "the other side" needs to consider their actions based upon he potential for what would be, for many (most) nations on Earth a death blow. I don't think any nation, regardless of size or population could economically weather the brunt of an attack from even a single Trident boat.

Tactical systems are much more dangerous, they're both more usable from the owners point of view and their damage potential, while drastic, may be considered to be bearable, particularly for any nation with an advanced air defence system.
 
Asking "who would we nuc?" kind of misses the point of deterrent systems.

However who do we want to be made aware of our potential to nuc them?

Resurgent Russia?
China?
Resurgent russia allied with China?
Confederation of Middle Asian States?
Confederation of Far Asian States?
An extreme right-wing dictatorship in what used to be the USA?
Any combination of the above?

I don't know, nor does anyone else.
What will the next two decades bring..... Who can tell?

There is a difference between an unwillingness to fund or procure defence system/project and an inability to procure same.
 
20 years ago, nobody could foresee the breakup of the soviet union. Whatever happens 20 years from now, it's fairly likely that no one will have foreseen it at this point, or their suggestion will have been written off as ridiculous and unthinkable.

For this very reason we need to be able to maintain our independent nuclear deterrent.
 
America has recently re-instated it's ballistic missile warning system. (Didn't realise it was ever swithed off) Scared of N Korea etc. Should we fire off a few in their (USA) direction just to help test it?
 
Am in complete agreement with maintaining a nuke deterrent, but do wonder exactly why we need to update the missiles? I guess a case can be made for updating the boats themsleves to maintain stealth etc, but surely the nukes we have are quite capable of the intended job?

This is a genuine question, if the tool does the job, why fix it? How often is a hammer redesigned etc?
 
The SSK and the SSN class are back dating near enough the 70's. The T boats could do with being updated to be honest, nothing wrong with that but however they are bringing in the Asute class that could be classed as an update to the T's, this is not a problem. It would be the best in the long run, the T's will be dicommissioned given by 2019/20 and the Asute will be up and running.

Still be fitted with the UAP (4) and will still have the same characters as the T's, sonar (2076) etc but eqt with more weapons. Instead of hot bunking the lads will have their own pits, so it can be said the upgrading is efficient towards the RN.

Russia are still using the SSK and the Typhoon class boats, old as hell but wouldn't like to be in the way. To accomodate and evolve, the RN needs to update it's boats and the use of them.

Edited for being a mong
 
Why update them if they aren't going to be obsolete for another 18 years? Surely that money would be better spent on other parts of the defence budget?
 
Anya wrote:

Instead of hot bunking the lads will have their own pits.

Looks to me that Naval recruiting for the Unterseeboot Fleet will drop drastically once that gets out. Never mind lads, theres always the surface fleet comprising one rowing boat and a tramp steamer.
 
chrisg46 said:
Am in complete agreement with maintaining a nuke deterrent, but do wonder exactly why we need to update the missiles? I guess a case can be made for updating the boats themsleves to maintain stealth etc, but surely the nukes we have are quite capable of the intended job?

This is a genuine question, if the tool does the job, why fix it? How often is a hammer redesigned etc?

I think the US are planning to upgrade existing Trident missiles to variant D5LE, to equip the Ohio subs up to 2040. If we are due to replace by 2020 then as you suggest they will probably upgrade our existing missile stock.
 
Can't be asked with rewriting this again, so here it goes from rr

Hearing on the news last night, the MoD have decided to axed the almighty T boats ( Call them Tigger since they bounced off the sea bed). I aven't kept up with the UK news for a while but this is what I know from when I was serving, please correct me and before you start, I think this is publci domain any how;

Ok we still have the S and the V boats. Not too sure how the RN is gonna swing this but we still have enough subs to operate, guess they are cutting back on fuel, maintenance etc. I Know the T's have been in and out of dry dock a few times, how ever, they have also been bouncing off iceburgs and the sea bed more than a good few times over the past few years :wink: Don't worry though, they announced the T's decommission but they will still be in service, my guessing until 2019. It takes along time to weed out our RN's ships and boats!

But keep in mind that the RN is about to launch the Astute (SSN), Which if I remember is to replace the Swiftsure class. The Astute class weapons load will be alot higher and should stand at 50% greater than T boats (Trafalger) Class boats.This should include ( again if I am correct) a number of weapons,Spearfish torpedoes and Tomahawk missiles etc

If I am correct, the below sonar is already active on 4 of the T boats;

The Asute class will be fitted with the 2076 sonar, both passive and active operations or another way, search and attack :wink: Also towed arrays.

Countermeasures systems will include Electronic Support Measures obv. decoys (ESM). For the ESM system this will bring onboard the UAP(4). UAP(4) has two passive/active antenna arrays which are mounted on the two non-hull masts.

The Asutes are amodern and update version boat and therefore the RN won'/t be losing anything by axing the T boat but gaining.

I am not agreeing it is the best move the RN has made, however, the RN could do with an upgrade to their boats.
 
Why update them if they aren't going to be obsolete for another 18 years? Surely that money would be better spent on other parts of the defence budget?

Heh Heh.....

Lead-in time basically.
Start paying for the updtes next year and they might actually be online in 18 years time.

Think about it..... Bowman???
 
£25bn could go a hell of a long way anywhere not just the MoD! The point remains, though, that were you to forsake this project the money could well be worthless spent elsewhere because we would have too little to back up our defence and ultimately foreign policy even if it were used to bolster our beleagured Armed Forces. Without a Nuclear deterrent, we are no longer a world power, indeed we would take the back seat in NATO capability wise.

Our permanent place on the Security Council is also supported by our nuclear status, and it is an important position to hold, IMHO permanent membership of the Security Council is worth £25bn.

That aside, Brown should not, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, be commenting on Defence and Foreign policy, you're not PM yet mate!
 
Bat_Crab said:
£25bn could go a hell of a long way anywhere not just the MoD! The point remains, though, that were you to forsake this project the money could well be worthless spent elsewhere because we would have too little to back up our defence and ultimately foreign policy even if it were used to bolster our beleagured Armed Forces. Without a Nuclear deterrent, we are no longer a world power, indeed we would take the back seat in NATO capability wise.

Our permanent place on the Security Council is also supported by our nuclear status, and it is an important position to hold, IMHO permanent membership of the Security Council is worth £25bn.

That aside, Brown should not, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, be commenting on Defence and Foreign policy, you're not PM yet mate!

I agree, and could you imagine France having nukes and not us! thats worth £25bn!
 
Top