What should go?

[Jeremy]

What (actual proper) countries haven't had a stab at ruling the world at some point?

The Empire is in the past, time to move on!

[Magpie]

which the majority of the UK are not in favour of

Not sure this is true

[Brendan]

It?s difficult to separate the actual valid arguments for having a nuclear deterrent and the ideological idea that Britain should have big guns to give Johnny Foreigner what for as it knows best because it?s Britain rah rah rah god save the queen etc.

[Jeremy]

Magpie Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> which the majority of the UK are not in favour of

>

>

> Not sure this is true

Fair enough... I was making an assumption based on the fact that I don't know many people in favour the scheme. It does seem deeply unpopular. But of course, this is not exactly a comprehensive survey.

I'm not really sure how you can justify it. Most countries seem to get by just fine without nuclear weapons, what makes us so different? Especially in light of our economic problems... it just seems completely daft. Here is an enormous chunk of money which we don't *need* to spend, but we *want* to spend so that we can keep up the pretence of still being a superpower on some level.

[Santerme]

Which of us are able to predict what the world will look like in 50 years? time, because that is what you have to be able to do if you advocate unilateral nuclear disarmament.

Making these assumptions about the future nature of armed conflict is a perilous business.

There is no one with any kind of decent track record on this issue.

Predicting that the era of high intensity state-on-state warfare is gone for good ? is a dangerous fallacy.

No-one knows which enemies might confront us during the next thirty to fifty years, but it is highly probable that at least some of them will be armed with weapons of mass destruction.

Trident accounts for 0.1% of GDP over the lifetime of the project.

It preserves our shipbuilding skills and the vast majority of the money spent remains in the UK with British manufacturers because of the nature of the work.

[Jeremy]

There are many relatively powerful countries without nuclear weapons. By the same logic, they are also taking a gamble by not tooling up as we speak.

[Santerme]

National security is the foremost responsibility of any British Govt, all else is subsidiary to that.

We gambled with disarmament in the past at our peril.

[YawnAlot]

What (actual proper) countries haven't had a stab at ruling the world at some point?

The Empire is in the past, time to move on!

Eh, kind've insulting some of the world there. There's a lot of 'proper' countries that haven't tried ruling the world:)

Anyway, this will be another one of those useless exercises. They won't really give people much of a say in what laws they change.

[Jeremy]

YawnAlot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Eh, kind've insulting some of the world there.

I know. It was tongue-in-cheek.

[expat]

>We gambled with disarmament in the past at our peril.

Not having nuclear weapons is not the same as disarmament. Indeed if the MoD really is going to pay the 20Bn out of existing budget, which will be cut 10-20%, there will be an impact on non-nuclear forces.

[Santerme]

I'm sorry, but in my book, if you give up the ultimate strategic weapons system in your arsenal, you are disarming yourself.

As for an impact on non nuclear forces, yes there will be an impact.

The RAF are already saying they ae willing to give up the Nimrod programme to save their fast jets...something I think is particularly silly

But the money is going to have to be juggled a little more creatively in these times of imposed austerity.

We all know the best way out of a recession is to cut spending, because we learned so well from the 1930's

Sarcasm off.

[expat]

>if you give up the ultimate strategic weapons system in your arsenal, you are disarming yourself.

So all the counties without nuclear weapons are disarmed?

Who is England going to deter with the nuclear weapons?

[Marmora Man]

The Nuclear Deterrent Force is not a weapon of war it is a strategic political instrument. To that end it should be paid for from central funds not MoD funds. As someone that has probably been closer to the deterrent than anyone else on this forum I have particular knowledge but cannot offer unconditional support for the concept or actual practice today.

I do not agree with Santerme that giving up the Trident deterrent is necessarily a disarming. To deter it is necessary to be able to guarantee a massive retaliatory strike (UK has a no first strike policy) - that requires continuous availability, surviveability of the weapon platform and a credible "big bang". All three elements can be provided by nuclear tipped submarine launched missiles - albeit with a more limited range. A one megaton strike is pretty devastating - and should be a sufficient deterrent. Being able to deliver 32 one megaton missile heads is not 32 times as deterring.

There is an argument that Trident could be dispensed with - the reality is that over its lifetime Trident and the nuclear deterrent force costs, at less than ?1bn a year over 30 years, far less that the next generation of fast jets for the RAF.

[Santerme]

expat Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> >if you give up the ultimate strategic weapons

> system in your arsenal, you are disarming

> yourself.

> So all the counties without nuclear weapons are

> disarmed?

>

> Who is England going to deter with the nuclear

> weapons?

[Santerme]

Looks like RN are going to equip with FA-18F instead of JSF.

Makes sense every FA-18 has been delivered on time and on budget and the two carriers are capable of operating the airframe.

FA-18 is currently thought to match peer threats out to 2035.

Let's hope BAe don't throw their dummy out of the pram!

[Marmora Man]

Santerme,

It is my understanding that the JSF wasn't yet meeting the spec anyway - too much all up weight for a carrier borne aircraft

[david_carnell]

If the CVF goes ahead.....

Carriers are all well and good but we don't have the ships to make up a proper support fleet nor the long range reconnaisance aircraft to patrol with it "beyond horizon".

And why doesn't CVF have a catapult? And why build the things if you can't afford the planes for them?! Lunacy.

There are some tough questions for the MoD - major projects will have to be dispensed with. Big boys toys always seemingly win out against kit for the grunts on the ground so my bet would be on FRES as the first to go. It's not like our current ARVs are woefully inept or anything. Oh, wait.

[Santerme]

I agree, the surface fleet would need a rethink (being armed would be nice).

And the idea of removing from service the best ASW platform in the world by ditching, no pun intended, Nimrod is farcial.

The FA-18 would push up the already huge cost of CVF again.

I was sharing a glass of wine with the Programme Controller for the Merlin last night and she thought about a further ?3 billion just to hit the in service schedule and that is with going with steam catapults.

Far too expensive to go with electromagnetic, we would need the same amount of complex integration work, all those high frequency high voltage things flying around.

We might go with the US system, which is designed for a US aircraft carrier or we might ask Converteam to scale up their very smart models to a production capable unit.

The other alternative would be a ski ramp.

The FA-18 can take off in a much shortened distance using this method, although it is at the price of payload.

[Tarot]

I agree with Steve T. Also id like to see hospital car park charges scrapped. In there place patients should have a pass so they or a visiting relative, can use them. So no one else can use the car parks.

[Marmora Man]

Santerme,

Just got round to reading this - the best ASW platform in the world is another submarine. The Nimrods were helpful but needed direction to localise - from submarines, FFs with towed arrays or SOSUS.

One Nimrod = 8 hours fly time & 4 hours on task (roughly if working west of UK). Many, many Nimrods needed to trail, localise and sink a single submarine.

One submarine = 12 weeks on task time during which it can localise, trail, close and sink many enemy submarines.

On the decision to go ahead with the carriers - it gives us a lopsided navy for ten years, but I think the defence thinking is that ten years is a long time - between then and now there may be a case to be made for more destroyers and other escorts, which are, as David Carnell points out essentail to any carrier task force. Equally, the current plan to mothball one of the carriers my not happen. Suppose they prove useful to us and our allies, suppose we fly Nato aircraft off a UK platform. If the carrier programme had been ditched now there would never again be a Britisgh carrier force, this fudged decisoon may give us one in the future.

[SteveT]

It is a pity to see the Harrier "dumped" it did really well against the opposition in the Falklands conflict, because when you throw the thrusters into reverse the opposition can do nothing to your plane mwhen you are behind them leaving the enemy vulnerable to attack.

The Americans couldn't wait to launch their own but waited until the patent had run out before they built their own, anything rather than buy British.

[david_carnell]

The problem is that the Harrier is a 40 year old airframe that against a state with a decent air force would be crucified. It's ok in Iraq and Afghanistan but against Russia, China, even modern day Argentina, it would be found lacking. We need the F35C and quickly.

I wonder if the RAF will get the F35C too now or will still try and ask for the STOVL variant?

Santerme? Mamora Man? Any thoughts?

[Brendan]

Here's praying to every god imaginable that Russia, China, even modern day Argentina are not countries that we find ourselves at war with in the future.

[david_carnell]

Well yes, of course. I'm not a war monger Brendan. But if we choose to have a modern, well equipped armed forces and to continue being a world player as it were (and I'm open to the idea of not being btw - although I'd need convincing) then you have to do it properly and spend the money on the right kit at the right time.

This latest Strategic Defence Review seems a bit of a fudge tbh. Lots of jam tomorrow.

[Brendan]

Oh don?t get me wrong, not preparing for the possibility would be folly of the highest degree. It?s just that the idea of a 3rd world war doesn?t bare thinking about.

Isn?t British politics all about the fudge though?