Replace Trident with jets

[Jason Grant]

The UK should replace its Trident submarines with an air dropped nuclear deterrent and save up to £13 billion for priority defence equipment spending, a new report from CentreForum proposes.

The report finds that the Trident programme - which is due to be renewed after the general election in May - is an "expensive and excessive" solution to the nation's nuclear deterrence requirements, even by extraordinary standards set during the Cold War.*

It says that politicians should revisit alternatives to Trident that meet the requirements for minimum deterrence and free up resources for the conventional military.

Since the UK government's Trident Alternatives Review in July 2013, the US has proceeded with a new air dropped nuclear weapon for NATO - the 'B61 Mod 12' - which CentreForum considers a credible design for the UK to copy. This option was not considered by the official review.

The report recommends that Britain's forthcoming F-35 Joint Strike Fighters - a stealth aircraft bought for conventional missions - should be adapted to deliver a minimum nuclear deterrent based upon a stockpile of 100 British built B61-12 nuclear bombs.

It contains illustrative scenarios to show how this model could be successfully employed against unlikely but potential nuclear threats and ensure that deterrence is achieved.

Because it involves dual use systems, CentreForum's plan would also significantly strengthen the conventional armed forces, the report says.

Added benefits include:
Funding the conversion of both Queen Elizabeth-class carriers to catapult launch/arrested recovery configuration, improving their capability
A further five Astute-class attack submarines and four Type 26 frigates for the Navy
E-2D Hawkeye radar planes for the carriers
Providing for eight maritime patrol aircraft to fill the gap left by the cancellation of Nimrod in 2010​
Converting the RAF's Voyager tankers to provide boom refuelling in addition to hose and drogue and to receive fuel in flight

CentreForum calculates that replacing Trident with its alternative proposal would generate £4.8-£13.1 billion of additional capital savings to 2032.

Report here: http://centreforum.org/index.php/14-new ... -deterrent

[Sparts99]

Interesting but surely the best thing about a submarine laucnhed deterrent is that a sub can be anywhere in the world at any time undetected, we always have a boat on patrol as I understand things anyway. We can't have F-35's airborne 24/7 ready to go. And the sub weapons will be MIRV I'd have thought. How far can an F-35 get into eastern Europe ? Even with a stand off weapon the sub launched missile must be more of a problem for an aggressor to deal with, although it is 'all the eggs in one basket'.

[paullangford]

I noticed the report had an F-35 C variant on it's cover, and page 37......not the 'B' model we're getting
Looks like they are proposing to convert the carriers to cat and trap, and get the 'C' model as well......yea......like THAT will happen.

[paddyboy]

Yawnarama

Just seems like we: a.k.a., the taxpayers, are going to get shafted yet again

Paddyboy

[Doughnut]

Air launched nuclear weapons systems simply do not have the range to counter the global threat, even if flown from aircraft carriers. Whilst the global reach of Trident type nuclear submarines is understandable, could the nuclear warhead not be delivered by a cruise missile launched from a Trafalgar class submarine ?

[thorny1a]

This option has already been evaluated in the official Trident alternatives review https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... ves-review and the Continuous-at-sea submarine based deterrent was a clear winner if we actually want a system that is truly robust, stealthy & flexible.

Personally, I'm more inclined to ditch the deterrent completely, and pour all the cash into bolstering our conventional capabilities. It is utterly incomprehensible that we would ever use our deterrent without American authorisation or support anyway, as the two are so intimately connected. If the situation was that grave then the Americans' or French would do the dirty work for us. That's just my view though, so I'm willing to be shot down (pardon the pun.. .)

[Rich H]

I noticed the report had an F-35 C variant on it's cover, and page 37......not the 'B' model we're getting
Looks like they are proposing to convert the carriers to cat and trap, and get the 'C' model as well......yea......like THAT will happen.

The theory underpinning the report not only requires the UK to purchase the F-35C (the author reckons this will save us £1.2billion as they are cheaper) but to then fit the avionics from the F-35A to our new 'C' models to enable them to carry nuclear weapons, as only the 'A' variant is nuclear capable.

[Andy_99]

Quite how converting the carriers to cat & trap then purchasing a hybrid F35 C with 35A avionics will be cheaper I can't quite fathom out.

Our deterrent will always be sub based as mentioned subs can provide an always there capability that just can't be met with aircraft.

[turmo]

Trident was an awesome strategic deterrent but fairly useless in the new World of asymmetrical threats.

No politician is going to authorise launch of a sub-strategic Trident warhead against a tactical target such as a deep-set bunker. The risks of mis-interpretation and escalation are too high. Never mind conveniently disclosing the sub's location.

Whereas with air delivery, everything is recallable upon until release and The Russians won't mistake it as an opening salvo of WW3.

Unfortunately the RAF has no realistic chance of rebuilding all the nuclear procedures and knowledge that have been discarded.

[paullangford]

I noticed the report had an F-35 C variant on it's cover, and page 37......not the 'B' model we're getting
Looks like they are proposing to convert the carriers to cat and trap, and get the 'C' model as well......yea......like THAT will happen.

The theory underpinning the report not only requires the UK to purchase the F-35C (the author reckons this will save us £1.2billion as they are cheaper) but to then fit the avionics from the F-35A to our new 'C' models to enable them to carry nuclear weapons, as only the 'A' variant is nuclear capable.

Hmm.......I think the whole thing is a non starter, no government would face the embarrasment of reversing a reversed, then reversed again contract for these aircraft and the carriers.

[Malcolm]

I'd put the money towards typhoon tranche 3b new hawks UAV and maritime aircraft. But I'm biest

If a future govt decided to scrap the nuclear deterrant, then the chances of any of the money thus saved being used for other defence projects are nil IMHO. At best it'll be used to reduce the national deficit/debt, and at worst It'll just be pi55ed up the wall on the NHS, Welfare, Pensions and Benefits.

[thorny1a]

Unfortunately, I think you're spot on their Maclcolm. Went it comes to political priorities, Defence gets squeezed from all parties. But ultimately if the pot is small, then something somewhere has to give

[TonyO]

Quite how converting the carriers to cat & trap then purchasing a hybrid F35 C with 35A avionics will be cheaper I can't quite fathom out.

All F-35s will have the same avionics, regardless of version.

[Blue Diamond]

So if Kim Jong Un ever loses it (well, even more than usual) and decides to nuke us, we'll have to wait 4+ weeks for our carrier to sail to within striking range of North Korea in order to provide a deterrent? NB: Nuclear wars are usually over in 4 hours, not 4 weeks.

Also I'd like to know how the F-35's electronics will handle flying through the EMPs from nukes, etc.

Been in many have we?

[Nikon]

Ridiculous to suggest an aircraft launched deterrent is appropriate in any way. That would be a sensationally idiotic backwards step for anyone. The point was already made, the fact that the submarines are fully mobile and in the most part undetected is the key. Thank goodness some of you don't run the country.

[Surfrdan]

So if Kim Jong Un ever loses it (well, even more than usual) and decides to nuke us, we'll have to wait 4+ weeks for our carrier to sail to within striking range of North Korea in order to provide a deterrent? NB:

Striking range? Faslane to Korea is about 5400 miles. Trident operational range is over 6000. Just launch it from home

[Bushpilot]

Trident doesn't seem to be deterrring Putin at the moment. This proposal might work if we had something capable of delivering an ALCM and the Air Marshals and Admirals could stop fighting over who gets the Nuclear deterrent like it was the last layer in a game of pass the parcel.

[Tim Holden]

Alas the world is an unstable place and lots of nations have at least the capability to build nuclear weapons. Even if they do not posess a viable delivery system right now to threaten the UK this is still a threat. There may be some dubious states who think they can get away with giving a nuke to ISIS or some other terrorist group. Even worse a nuclear capable state could fall to an extremist coup. The fact that we can hit anyone, anywhere with no defence against the strike is a powerful deterrent to any who would think it is worth the risk.

If there was not a Nuclear stick then I guarantee that Putin would have overrun the whole of the Ukraine by now. He knows there is a line he can't cross. He may stick a couple of toes over now and then but will not risk an outright war.

The F35 is freefall nukes is not a deterrent. Its range is too limited and although it is stealthy I would not give its stealth capability more than 10 - 15 years before it is compromised. We should definitely co-operate with the USA to save cost of a new SSBN and missile system.

[Pete_uk]

Trident doesn't seem to be deterrring Putin at the moment.

Course it doesn't. He knows we would not be silly enough to use them.

As for the aircraft idea...

TSR3, anyone?