Caporegime
Well one reason is if you had an issue with two subs and one was in refit you could be in trouble.
Trident or Aircraft Carriers or JSF
- Thread starter scorza
- Start date
It is all to do with redundancy precaution. In the event that two boats are, for some reason out of commision and one is in refit then you no longer have a deterent.
The fourth boat is neccessary to ensure continued active assets.
The collision of two French subs attest to it's neccessity.
Soldato
I would have thought anyone who knows won't rwally be able to disclose much info on that. Not sure I'd be comfortable disclosing what i know and there's the OSA to comply with.
3 pretty much dictates the next gen propulsion design and implementation and it's associated costs. Our SSBNs on route for maintainance have to stop via the us to drop off it's 'cargo'.
Last edited:
Caporegime
He's not asking for specifics, but yes its as above, if he was asking specifics and someone spurted out some restricted material i'd have to respect the nature of what i've signed and act appropriately and i'd hope anyone else would do the same.
iirc its 1 at sea 1, training, 1 refit/service, 1 spare.
Always good to have a spare.
The reasons why we have a four sub deterrent isn't subject to the OSA. In fact 3 sub solutions are currently being discussed as a viable option. It is simply down to redundancy.
We currently have one in refit, one either preparing or leaving refit, one on operational service and one in port. With a 3 sub solution, a simple thing like a fire or mechanical/electronic failure would mean an end to the 365 day 24/7 deterrent.
SSBN's are not used for training purposes. The Navy use SSN's for this, SSBN specific drills are generally done on service.
Last edited:
Soldato
Seems I had been sutably vague 
until recently I worked at the company who are the technical authority for the uks naval nuclear propulsion plants, specifically on vanguard in service support and astute mods. I could list many technical reasons and examples why only 3 would be difficult but of course OSA prevents that.
Not sure what you mean by training, the cargo I refered is related to the D5 us supplied part of our
until recently I worked at the company who are the technical authority for the uks naval nuclear propulsion plants, specifically on vanguard in service support and astute mods. I could list many technical reasons and examples why only 3 would be difficult but of course OSA prevents that. Not sure what you mean by training, the cargo I refered is related to the D5 us supplied part of our
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
Has anyone mentioned that at the moment, and for the next 30 years we won't be fighting anyone that actually requires top new kit to fight.
Its not super new jets we're up against that need even better newer jets to defeat, we're fighting makeshift bombs buried in dirt, newer better gets or aircraft carriers won't do anything to help. Neither frankly will better trucks, what would help, is not getting into wars that do nothing in the first place.
Lets be honest, none of the worlds superpowers can afford a war right now, no ones going to use nukes because theres no point, 3 nukes for every nation is plenty of deterrant, an uber old nuke is a deterrant because, its a freaking nuke. No ones got a system capable of taking all of ours out either pre or post launch, while one is capable of getting through, the deterrant is there.
The only issue is jobs missing if we don't continue wasting money on these projects, we'd be better if these companies switched to making things that won't be an entire waste so they can start making things to be exported and sold to make taxable income for the country.
Scrap them all, it won't make a blind bit of difference to our military capability, the only people wanting to get into wars are 3rd world countries, and the only reason they can is because we get sucked in and go over there, if we stay over here, no ones invading any time soon.
Get the country back on track, stop wasting billions on things we don't need for wars we don't need to be in, and spend some money down the road if international situation worsens to any great degree, in 20 years when there might be a chance of a proper war, everything we make and buy now, will be obsolete anyway.
Its not super new jets we're up against that need even better newer jets to defeat, we're fighting makeshift bombs buried in dirt, newer better gets or aircraft carriers won't do anything to help. Neither frankly will better trucks, what would help, is not getting into wars that do nothing in the first place.
Lets be honest, none of the worlds superpowers can afford a war right now, no ones going to use nukes because theres no point, 3 nukes for every nation is plenty of deterrant, an uber old nuke is a deterrant because, its a freaking nuke. No ones got a system capable of taking all of ours out either pre or post launch, while one is capable of getting through, the deterrant is there.
The only issue is jobs missing if we don't continue wasting money on these projects, we'd be better if these companies switched to making things that won't be an entire waste so they can start making things to be exported and sold to make taxable income for the country.
Scrap them all, it won't make a blind bit of difference to our military capability, the only people wanting to get into wars are 3rd world countries, and the only reason they can is because we get sucked in and go over there, if we stay over here, no ones invading any time soon.
Get the country back on track, stop wasting billions on things we don't need for wars we don't need to be in, and spend some money down the road if international situation worsens to any great degree, in 20 years when there might be a chance of a proper war, everything we make and buy now, will be obsolete anyway.
Man of Honour
Though full on war is unlikely, just 60 years ago we were on the verge of invasion and speaking German.
You just cannot let your guard down, the world is not safe. Ok, I guess invasion is not ever going to happen but projection of power is very important, and the ultimate tool is the super carrier. Nukes also provide a tool that makes all but the most insane dictator think twice.
North Korea could have nuked the recent exercises held by the us and south Korea, they even threatened attack.... But I have a feeling they just didn't have the stomach for it, which proves the point really
Our current military policys have kept us safe for years now, why risk major change....
Last thing is I wonder what our military industry generates both in jobs and income via tax and exports. One conspiracy theory I heard was e whole of the gulf war was to do with military contacts and indirectly boosting the USA economy through that. IRS plausible
You just cannot let your guard down, the world is not safe. Ok, I guess invasion is not ever going to happen but projection of power is very important, and the ultimate tool is the super carrier. Nukes also provide a tool that makes all but the most insane dictator think twice.
North Korea could have nuked the recent exercises held by the us and south Korea, they even threatened attack.... But I have a feeling they just didn't have the stomach for it, which proves the point really
Our current military policys have kept us safe for years now, why risk major change....
Last thing is I wonder what our military industry generates both in jobs and income via tax and exports. One conspiracy theory I heard was e whole of the gulf war was to do with military contacts and indirectly boosting the USA economy through that. IRS plausible
Seems I had been sutably vague
Not sure what you mean by training, the cargo I refered is related to the D5 us supplied part of our
Google would also give you the First Sea Lord giving many technical reasons and the Govt analysts giving examples of why a 3 SSBN option is difficult. I wonder why they are not limited by the OSA.
Its also common knowledge that the UK draws its D5 missiles from the U.S. Strategic Weapons Facility Atlantic at Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay, Georgia which services them. Again I don't understand your reticence to name such things. My submariner friend doesn't have the same restrictions placed on him, only regarding his operational status. We are effectively talking generalities here anyway.
Last edited:
Man of Honour
Lol, excellent idea here!!
So the correct answer is to cancel Trident. We cancel it but don’t tell anyone.
Trident is there as a deterrent – not as a missile to be used. The consequences of firing it would be disastrous. So as long as the enemy (choose from the long but revolving list of perceived foes) think we have it and thus do not attack, it has worked. The illusionist can create a sham industry pretending to build the system. And the chancellor can spend the £20bn on something more useful – probably paying off debt.
So the correct answer is to cancel Trident. We cancel it but don’t tell anyone.
Trident is there as a deterrent – not as a missile to be used. The consequences of firing it would be disastrous. So as long as the enemy (choose from the long but revolving list of perceived foes) think we have it and thus do not attack, it has worked. The illusionist can create a sham industry pretending to build the system. And the chancellor can spend the £20bn on something more useful – probably paying off debt.
Soldato
This is a very, very old joke. About just having a box with "nuclear deterrent" written on it, and nobody's the wise.
Now meanwhile, back in reality....