Trident cuts

Just been watching SKYNEWS. On the teletype. Broon has offered to make a cut in TRIDENT as a gesture of peaceful intent. Is this a statesman like offer, or an attempt to cut the deficit in the public purse ? Having done time on the nuclear detergent, cutting the number of boats from 3 to 4 will either mean there won't be a boat on patrol permanently, or the length of patrols will increase drastically. Not to mention X amount of Jan dockies down the Swanee. No link thingy currently available yet.

 

Here's a link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8270092.stm
I wonder how the Conservatives will respond.

 

Oppo this has to be a new way of accounting? I often wondered how the Jack Dustys managed with their stores accounts
I know what you meant though.

 

Or it could mean keeping the boat in harbour bombed up and ready to launch on warning. I think that idea would go down like a lead fart with CND and the Scottish Naturalists.

 

And do you really think any of the others will pay the slightest bit of attention. They all know the UK cannot really afford Trident never mind a replacement (the reality that the found has fallen in value by nearly 30% in the last year shows the rest of the world is well aware just how bankrupt Brown is). Thus the reduction in UK nuclear capability is already factiored in, and Brown's offer will in reality count for SFA. His posturing to show that he is leading world finance and disarmament is pathetic and not even the Prince of Darkness' charms can make it look better.

 

Any Bomber Queens on here know the impact this move will have on deployment length, crew changes, maintenance packages etc? Opsec/Persec taken into consideration of course...

 

"The story of Britain's independent nuclear deterrent is the story of a man on £30,000 a year who gets into massive debt so he can buy an Aston Martin that costs a fortune to maintain, sits in his driveway for 300 days a year and makes him look like a cock."

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/war/bankrupt-britain-forced-to-give-up-weapons-it-never-needed-200909232084/

 

The fact is that, with minuscule resources compared to either the Americans or the Soviets, Britain managed to independently construct a series of atomic and thermonuclear weapons in a very short space of time with limited testing. Dismissing it as mere overspending seems, to me, to show ignorance.

 

I am a civie so please excuse my ignorance, but surely military spending is the most important thing to this country? I wonder if Queen Vic tried to cut spendings? And why dont we just cut the fleet down to 1 sub then we can give the savings to the banks, or even better give it to Greggs?

 

The One eyed Jock strikes yet again with another bloody cost cutting act of stupidity. This time in the name of cutting our nuclear detergent! What a muppett.
So what does he thinks happens to this boat? Does he think if he returns it to stores he'll get his money back?
Doesn't he realise the bloody think needs to be maintained all the time the reactor is on board?
God gawd wouldn't you have thought that after the bloody gerfuffle back in early 90s there was for the fourth boat and the money that was spent putting out tenders for the kit that went on the boat etc (I was involved in the bid process for the sonar equipment) he would have kept all four till their life ran out which can't be long as they have been waffling on about 'the Trident replacement for months.
Come on Broon BUFFS!!!

 

Only 9 months and counting. Whatever Cyclops promises now is unlikely to happen before the election. Only worry is if Call me Dave takes it as read without thinking about it first. Adds a whole new meaning to Mandelson's instruction to act like insurgents, not incumbents the other week.

 

"Britain's desire to be a big player on the world stage has delivered huge benefits including being dragged into a series of catastrophic wars with America's throbbing tumescence lodged firmly at the back of our throat"

Genius.

 

Been done before. :wink:

 

Apparently this course of action was suggested in the Defence Review 2006.All Brown has done is drag it out and dust it off so he can look as though he's doing something to promote world peace.It,of course, is nothing whatsoever to do with saving money.

 

Post deleted until I have wound myself up enough to make a concise and coherent point.

 

Simple answer if we were to operate CASD with 3 boats we would need to invest hugely more in those platforms maintenance and support schedules, MP run much longer patrol cycles and pay much more for refits to ensure that the two boats that would be running at any one time would be able to operate a cycle about. I would not be at all surprised if the cost of running 3 would actually be more than the cost of running 4. Any submariner will tell you that in all likelihood it would not be possible. Obviously this is a public forum so details are kept to a minimum