Cutting our nuclear subs from 4 to 3
Discussion
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8270092.stm
They want to cut the number of subs from 4 to 3 to reduce public spending, just seems to me that is they were not so wasteful in other areas this would not be necessary.
They want to cut the number of subs from 4 to 3 to reduce public spending, just seems to me that is they were not so wasteful in other areas this would not be necessary.
It is indeed the replacement. When they originally announced the intended replacement (3 years ago'ish?) they said then that it would be 3 Subs, with a reduced compliment of missiles on each as well.
Over the life of the platforms it will reduce costs significantly I would have thought. Granted it won't reduce it on the initial outlay, but over 30-40 years?
As mentioned above, our government (in fact all partys) have there priorities completely wrong. The simplest answer to save money is to stop giving it to the feckless benefit spongers.
Over the life of the platforms it will reduce costs significantly I would have thought. Granted it won't reduce it on the initial outlay, but over 30-40 years?
As mentioned above, our government (in fact all partys) have there priorities completely wrong. The simplest answer to save money is to stop giving it to the feckless benefit spongers.
XJR40 said:
I heard on the news this morning that this'll save the government 3 to 5 billion annually. Does it really cost that much to run a sub for a year?!
Given that the news was issued by the Government and broadcast by the BBC what do you think? This has nothing to do with saving money anyway. The Government are ideologically opposed to nuclear weapons and this is just an excuse to chip away at our own nuclear capability.
Lefty Guns said:
AshVX220 said:
As mentioned above, our government (in fact all partys) have there priorities completely wrong. The simplest answer to save money is to stop giving it to the feckless benefit spongers.
Couldn't agree more.(ok, a provocative post that I don't stand behind, but the priciple is an important one, cold and hungry people do unpleasant things to stay alive)
XJR40 said:
I heard on the news this morning that this'll save the government 3 to 5 billion annually. Does it really cost that much to run a sub for a year?!
£3-£5bn a year is a drop in ocean compared to current government debts:bbc said:
The government's overall debt now stands at £804.8bn, or 57.5% of GDP, an increase of £172bn in the past year.
Bear in mind that we have also printed £175Bn through Quantitive easing, which has been used to buy up governemnet debt - and the debt has still increased by £172Bn! Gold said:
Yertis said:
XJR40 said:
This has nothing to do with saving money anyway. The Government are ideologically opposed to nuclear weapons and this is just an excuse to chip away at our own nuclear capability.
To be honest I think the difference in capability between 3 and 4. What is the difference between 160 and 100 nuclear missiles? If we have to fire more than one we will probably be all dead and how much of a difference to the Russia/China/pakistan/France will it be?BarnatosGhost said:
Lefty Guns said:
AshVX220 said:
As mentioned above, our government (in fact all partys) have there priorities completely wrong. The simplest answer to save money is to stop giving it to the feckless benefit spongers.
Couldn't agree more.(ok, a provocative post that I don't stand behind, but the priciple is an important one, cold and hungry people do unpleasant things to stay alive)
Certainly a few will resort to more crime, but after a few years of pain, the UK will be a better place IMO.
Back on topic, the poster that asked the difference between 160 and 100 warheads is right. As for having to get the nod from the US, I don't that will be the case, in the event of such a system being used, it'll be obvious and pretty much automatic. Besides if it happened, comms with the US would probably be destroyed prior to launching anyway.
As for needing them, well, they're a huge strategic and political asset. Again a fault of all governments, they plan for the war they can see, not the one that they can't. Who know's what the political make off of the world will be in 30-40 years.
In an age of increasing Nuclear proliferation an independent Nuclear deterrant is more important than ever.
It is of more importance now than in the cold war, when any Soviet strike would have resulted in US retaliation.
Given that these subs must spend some time in port 3 subs does not sound very many to me.
It is of more importance now than in the cold war, when any Soviet strike would have resulted in US retaliation.
Given that these subs must spend some time in port 3 subs does not sound very many to me.
An absolute waste of money, The UK needs to realise you cannot play the major world power on credit, the country is close to bankrupt but still trying to keep up with the neighbours. Dump the SSBNs, invest in SSNs which provide different conventional options including nuclear strike with cruise missiles. But considering the increased investment already into Aldermaston for warhead research, I would suspect this is already well on the way, without the difficulty of actually asking the electorate or elected representatives on this huge investment.
The laugh is the UK had to lease the bloody Trident missiles from the US, we do not even own our own nuclear deterrent. Wonder what the balloon payment on that would be ? or should that be mushroom payment ?
Besides the barefaced hypocrisy of lecturing to Iran about nuclear proliferation.
The laugh is the UK had to lease the bloody Trident missiles from the US, we do not even own our own nuclear deterrent. Wonder what the balloon payment on that would be ? or should that be mushroom payment ?
Besides the barefaced hypocrisy of lecturing to Iran about nuclear proliferation.
Edited by Traveller on Wednesday 23 September 11:27
JagLover said:
In an age of increasing Nuclear proliferation an independent Nuclear deterrant is more important than ever.
It is of more importance now than in the cold war, when any Soviet strike would have resulted in US retaliation.
Given that these subs must spend some time in port 3 subs does not sound very many to me.
Three modern boats is enough to maintain the existing levels of active patrol - thisis why the replacement fleet will only have three boats. You could actually get away with running a three Vanguard class fleet (just), once refuelling is completed. It is of more importance now than in the cold war, when any Soviet strike would have resulted in US retaliation.
Given that these subs must spend some time in port 3 subs does not sound very many to me.
Its always generally been 1 leaving for patrol, 1 on patrol, 1 returning from patrol and a fourth being built/ungoing heavy maintenance/reactor refuelling.
Modern sub reactors don't need refuelling - they are fuelled for life on construction. This reduces the maintenance burden and makes a three ship fleet providing constant patrol viable.
For the record I can't stand Brown, and think Trident should be renewed. Unfortunately what Brown has suggested is actually quite sensible, and has in reality given away very little.
Traveller said:
An absolute waste of money, The UK needs to realise you cannot play the major world power on credit, the country is close to bankrupt but still trying to keep up with the neighbours. Dump the SSBNs, invest in SSNs which provide different conventional options including nuclear strike with cruise missiles. But considering the increased investment already into Aldermaston for warhead research, I would suspect this is already well on the way, without the difficulty of actually asking the electorate or elected representatives on this huge investment.
The laugh is the UK had to lease the bloody Trident missiles from the US, we do not even own our own nuclear deterrent. Wonder what the balloon payment on that would be ? or should that be mushroom payment ?
Besides the barefaced hypocrisy of lecturing to Iran about nuclear proliferation.
Nuclear tipped Cruise Missiles aren't a viable option, they can be shot down too easily.The laugh is the UK had to lease the bloody Trident missiles from the US, we do not even own our own nuclear deterrent. Wonder what the balloon payment on that would be ? or should that be mushroom payment ?
Besides the barefaced hypocrisy of lecturing to Iran about nuclear proliferation.
Edited by Traveller on Wednesday 23 September 11:27
As for it being a waste of money, the government spend around 10x the defence budget on benefits. Nuff said really. In the grand scheme of things it's cheap. They throw more money down the drain on non-jobs, than this deterrant will cost.
Iran, well, the UK hasn't openly stated that we'd like to wipe a close neighbour off the face of the earth for a start.
Even though I can't stand our government (or in fact any party to be honest at the moment), I have no concern that such a capability would be mis-used in the same way that a smaller or developing state may mis-use it.
BarnatosGhost said:
Lefty Guns said:
AshVX220 said:
As mentioned above, our government (in fact all partys) have there priorities completely wrong. The simplest answer to save money is to stop giving it to the feckless benefit spongers.
Couldn't agree more.(ok, a provocative post that I don't stand behind, but the priciple is an important one, cold and hungry people do unpleasant things to stay alive)
XJR40 said:
I heard on the news this morning that this'll save the government 3 to 5 billion annually. Does it really cost that much to run a sub for a year?!
No where near that for the whole fleet of 4, let alone 1. I doubt the saving of 4 to 3 will be significant as most of the costs are fixed regardless of how many submarines we have (all the support infrastructure, training, crews etc).
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff