• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Tories on Trident

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Tories on Trident

    The Trident nuclear deterrent would be renewed by a Tory government but the submarine fleet could be cut from four to three, shadow defence secretary Liam Fox said yesterday. All major defence projects need to be reviewed to ensure value for money for the taxpayer, Dr Fox said. But it was "prudent and sensible" to give Britain the "guarantee against nuclear blackmail"

    He told BBC One's Politics Show: "We are in favour of the replacement of the nuclear deterrent, we voted for it in Parliament.

    "But like all other projects that we have, we have to review them for value for money for the taxpayer."

    Pressed on the number of submarines in the nuclear fleet, he said: "Whether we have three or four, it's something that would be dependent on the technology. We're talking quite a few years ahead.

    "If you look at the elements within that, the current estimates of £2-3 billion for the infrastructure required, we have to look at all of those projects to see if we get value for money for the taxpayer."

    Dr Fox said Tory leader David Cameron had made it "very clear" that the Conservatives would replace Trident.

    At a news conference last week, Mr Cameron appeared to warn that his party could not guarantee to carry out the Trident update.

    He said: "Whether it is better strategic lift capacity which the armed services need, being better able to project power through having a proper Navy and carriers, having the best replacement there is for an independent nuclear deterrent - there are reasons for all of these things.

    "But clearly, when you are reviewing spending, you have to review all spending."

    But Dr Fox said today: "Clearly in a world, when you've got countries like North Korea and Iran potentially developing nuclear weapons, it is prudent and sensible to give Britain the guarantee against nuclear blackmail for what would be to 2040/50 and beyond."

    He said the Tories would immediately carry out a strategic defence review on gaining office next year to establish what was required of the armed forces.

    Service personnel were currently being funded for a "tempo of a world that existed in 1998", he said.

    He said it would not be possible to predict whether the defence budget would increase until the review was completed.

    "We will have to take account of the economic train wreck that we would inherit if we come to Government next year and that would of course be very difficult," he said.

    #2
    "Pressed on the number of submarines in the nuclear fleet, he said: "Whether we have three or four, it's something that would be dependent on the technology. We're talking quite a few years ahead."

    I admit to not doing the research, but I’m sure that I read some time ago that four was the minimum number of boats needed for operational reasons.
    How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror.

    Follow me on Twitter - LinkedIn Profile - The HAB blog - New Blog: Mad Cameron
    Xeno points: +5 - Asperger rating: 36 - Paranoid Schizophrenic rating: 44%

    "We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to high office" - Aesop

    Comment


      #3
      Personally, I'd be happy if they cancelled the whole Trident operation deterrent. I can't see us ever using it. Just place a few planes with nuclear bombs at strategic points from where we can hit rogue states and that should be enough, and a damn sight cheaper.

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by Cyberman View Post
        Personally, I'd be happy if they cancelled the whole Trident operation deterrent. I can't see us ever using it. Just place a few planes with nuclear bombs at strategic points from where we can hit rogue states and that should be enough, and a damn sight cheaper.
        I hear there's still an Avro Vulcan flying somewhere...

        Comment


          #5
          Is there still one at Baesystems at Woodford?

          They used to fire up the engines every month or so when I was a lad....



          T

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by Cyberman View Post
            Personally, I'd be happy if they cancelled the whole Trident operation deterrent. I can't see us ever using it. Just place a few planes with nuclear bombs at strategic points from where we can hit rogue states and that should be enough, and a damn sight cheaper.
            Between you and me - they will certainly cancel the upgrade if they come into power - Cameron has made it perfectly clear that we simply cannot afford this - there is no benefit millitarily or economically for Britain.

            They are unlikely to cancel the whole Trident program.

            The US companies who were going to carry out the upgrade will be furious - tough.

            Liam's reference to nuclear blackmail is misleading - and well he knows it. .

            The fact is as long as Britain remains a NATO member it has little to fear from any other developing nuclear states intentions..
            Last edited by AlfredJPruffock; 4 May 2009, 13:47.

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by AlfredJPruffock View Post
              The US companies who were going to carry out the upgrade will be furious - tough.
              Pentagon recently cancelled results of tender for air refuel airplanes that was won by EU Airbus (or BEA?), there is definite precedent of going back on such contracts.

              Economically it would be wise to share costs with the French - this will still allow to have nukes but at much cheaper price.

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by AtW View Post
                Pentagon recently cancelled results of tender for air refuel airplanes that was won by EU Airbus (or BEA?), there is definite precedent of going back on such contracts.

                Economically it would be wise to share costs with the French - this will still allow to have nukes but at much cheaper price.
                Very true comments about the dev costs wth the French . especially as they are now our NATO partners - I dont know why they didnt do this a long time ago - I guess the US had put terrifc pressure on the UK to be their sole nuclear supplier.
                Last edited by AlfredJPruffock; 4 May 2009, 13:59.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by HairyArsedBloke View Post
                  "Pressed on the number of submarines in the nuclear fleet, he said: "Whether we have three or four, it's something that would be dependent on the technology. We're talking quite a few years ahead."

                  I admit to not doing the research, but I’m sure that I read some time ago that four was the minimum number of boats needed for operational reasons.
                  Pretty sure they can do it with three, 6 months on, three months off. Always 2 on duty.

                  Anyway, the commies can track them anyway, their satellites track magnetic disturbances in the sea. Sadly it was the west that found that out and a spy sold the info to the Chinese.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by AlfredJPruffock View Post
                    I guess the US had put terrifc pressure on the UK to be their sole nuclear supplier.
                    Most certainly. There is also one issue there - nuclear missiles for submarines are often designed for specific parameters of a submarine, it is probably unified between US and UK, which is why Trident can be reused, but the French had their own program which is very successful actually - they have high quality missiles.

                    I'd agree with cancellation of Trident if UK went for French missiles, that can be half price easily (any extra money for French R&D will be totally unexpected profit) but if UK loses nukes then it would truly become relegated.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X