SB146564 said:Hey guys, I have looked everywhere for the Trident debate and what its about. Can't seem to find it anywhere. Would appreciate it if someone could give me a brief overview of what its about.
Thanks
letthecatoutofthebag said:bigwhiteshark said:What is going to happen to our existing four Trident class Submarines when the new UK bombers are built? Will they be just laid up or will our four old bombers be converted from Trident to Tomahawk carrying submarines like the US is doing with their first four OHIO class boats?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:OHIOSSGNCONVERSION.JPG
Err... decomissioned as the fuel will be spent and they will be passed their useful lives?
letthecatoutofthebag said:It's estimated the Trident D5 Life Extension programme will take 17 years to complete - call it 20 for government work. So the first "new" Trident missile will not be ready until 2028. By this time VANGUARD will be 35 years old. She (and the rest of the class) will not be fit for anything by this point other than decomissioning.
letthecatoutofthebag said:x4nd said:It's estimated the Trident D5 Life Extension programme will take 17 years to complete - call it 20 for government work. So the first "new" Trident missile will not be ready until 2028. By this time VANGUARD will be 35 years old. She (and the rest of the class) will not be fit for anything by this point other than decomissioning.
The first four Ohio class Trident boats are nearly 30 years old, and the US government believes they are fit to be converted for another use.
Surely such old submarines dont need to dive to the greater depths of new submarines to carry out a conventional role of launching tomahawk missiles?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio_class_submarine
bigwhiteshark said:The first four Ohio class Trident boats are nearly 30 years old, and the US government believes they are fit to be converted for another use.
bigwhiteshark said:Surely such old submarines dont need to dive to the greater depths of new submarines to carry out a conventional role of launching tomahawk missiles?
x4nd said:You’re not a submariner are you? Look beyond the fact that a vessel is a weapons platform, think about the tactical picture. In order to launch whatever weapon you carry, you must survive in the oceans. Hiding below various bathymetric layers is still one of the best methods of escaping detection. :dwarf:
bigwhiteshark said:My own interest in TLAM's began at the 1999 Submariners Association reunion at Gosport when FOSM informed us at the reunion dinner speech he had just heard that HMS/M Splendid fired the Royal Navy's first TLAM during the Korsovo Balkan crisis.
Magic_Mushroom said:bigwhiteshark said:My own interest in TLAM's began at the 1999 Submariners Association reunion at Gosport when FOSM informed us at the reunion dinner speech he had just heard that HMS/M Splendid fired the Royal Navy's first TLAM during the Korsovo Balkan crisis.
I'm surprised FOSM chose to boast about that given the results of that particular TLAM firing!!!!! :censored:
As far as converting the current SSBNs, I would suggest that their replacement will leave the RN with only enough cash to maintain 2 x CVF, 3 x SSBN and a VERY small surface force. Ay thoughts of retaining the current bombers for other purposes are therefore unrealistic.
The situation is even more worrying when it is considered that Scotland will almost certainly gain independence during the timescale of D5, let alone its replacement. That will result in one of 2 things: England paying extortionate rent to maintain Faslane or England having to pay to develop a new SSBN support facility down south (please note that I'm not Scottish).
In short, the replacement for Trident is utterly unaffordable for the RN. I don't doubt that an SSBN based deterrent is the most survivable form of deterrence. But I wonder if we should be looking at other options such as TLAM-N or ALCM-N to ensure that the wider capability of the RN is not slashed.
Of course, in a perfect world the Treasury would acknowledge that retaining nukes is as much a political issue as it is military and cough up some extra cash. However, we all know this won't happen and I really fear for the future of your Service when the costs for replacing Trident are considered. =(
Regards,
MM
SELJUK said:Falmouth makes soooo much sense...very deep natural harbour and access to deep water once past the continental shelf.
Problem is....too many PJ's in Government from all sides!