Trident D-5

During the recent UK election campaign Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg made his opposition to like-for-like Trident replacement plans clear, mainly on the basis of the high costs and record breaking budget deficit.   Forming a key element of the newly elected Coalition Government with Conservative David Cameron, Clegg is now in an excellent position to highlight other problems associated with Trident modernization plans before they are irreversibly acted on.

One problem not highlighted in the leadership campaign is the ‘dependence’ of the Trident system on the support of the US.   Indeed, having presented Trident modernization in the 2006 White Paper as meeting the requirement of a ‘UK nuclear force [that] remains fully operationally independent’, suggestions that it is anything short of this call into question the very rationale for renewing it on this basis.

Read more

Nukes on a Blog, trident, submarines, modernization, d-5 (all tags)

According to new analysis from the Institute for Fiscal Studies, should all three of Britain’s main political parties meet the budget commitments detailed in their election manifestos, then the UK looks set to face the biggest public spending cuts in over a generation.  The report suggests that Labour and the Liberal Democrats will have to make cuts on a scale not seen since the 1970s, when Prime Minister Jim Callaghan’s government was forced to turn to the International Monetary Fund for help in propping up the country.

Read more

Nukes on a Blog, UK, Trident, tax (all tags)

I’ve got a new article up over at the Royal United Services Institute website examining what UK defense priorities should be from an American perspective. Here’s my setup:

Looking ahead, the new US Quadrennial Defense Review released in February placed new emphasis on the non-traditional threats posed by irregular warfare, potential WMD proliferation and terrorist attacks, hybrid warfare combining high- and low-tech tactics, climate change, and the loss of shared access to the 'global commons' in air, sea, space, and cyberspace. Dependable access to these commons forms the backbone of the global order from which the UK benefits politically, economically, and militarily. Yet access to the commons is being contested today by state and non-state actors using asymmetric strategies and capabilities. The UK Ministry of Defence's recent Adaptability and Partnership Green Paper and Future Character of Conflict report offered similar assessments of a future security environment that will be contested, congested, cluttered, connected, and constrained.

To overcome these nontraditional threats, the Quadrennial Defense Review recommended rebalancing the US military to better support six key missions:

1. Defend the United States and support civil authorities at home;

2. Succeed in counterinsurgency, stability, and counterterrorism operations;
   
3. Build the security capacity of partner states;
   
4. Deter and defeat aggression in anti-access environments;
   
5. Prevent proliferation and counter weapons of mass destruction; and
   
6. Operate effectively in cyberspace.
   

Because of its historical and political comparative advantages, the UK is well-suited to orient itself toward missions 2, 3, 5, and 6.

On Mission 5, I have the following to say about UK Trident:

It is also worth noting that despite his disarmament rhetoric, President Obama seems committed to keeping the US nuclear deterrent - and by extension the nuclear umbrella protecting US allies - viable for as long as these weapons exist. For example, the Obama administration has announced plans to spend billions of dollars on refurbishment of the B61 gravity bomb, a next-generation bomber, and a successor to the Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine. Such investments leave UK policymakers free to decide about Trident based on their own military and political calculations, not some misperception that the US plans to unilaterally disarm anytime soon.

Not the most inspiring analysis for arms controllers, I know, but still an important point to make in response to the “Folding our nuclear umbrella” meme.

Read more

Nukes on a Blog, Iraq & Afghanistan, New START, FY 2011 Budget Request, Trident (all tags)

The always-scooping Christopher Cavas reports:

Rep. Gene Taylor, D-Miss., chairman of the House Seapower subcommittee, complained in a letter sent Thursday to Defense Secretary Robert Gates that the Navy “refuses to share” the analysis of alternatives (AoA) for the SSBN(X) program — a document that, Taylor says in the letter, was completed last year.

Rather than commit to replacing the current crop of large Ohio-class submarines armed with Trident II D5 ballistic missiles with similar ships, Taylor wants to see what a smaller, Virginia-class submarine armed with a less-lethal ballistic missile would cost. Instead, he says, the Navy already has decided it wants the bigger and more expensive ships — which some sources say could cost as much as $70 billion.

“I have repeatedly asked officials of the Department of the Navy if less-expensive alternatives to building the Ohio-class were examined,” Taylor said in the letter. “I have repeatedly been told that only the Trident solution met the requirement.”

Rep. Taylor understands the chart below and can clearly do the math: if replacing the Ohio-class SSBN fleet costs $85 billion and eats into funding for other Navy shipbuilding—like, say, the surface combatants built in Mississippi that employ at least 11,250 people in Gulfport and Pascagoula—then his district would take a serious economic hit.

The key question is whether Taylor’s parochial preference for a smaller, cheaper SSBN-X might actually comport with broader U.S. national security requirements. I for one would like to read the analysis of alternatives to see what the Navy thinks about a smaller, cheaper boomer.

Read more

Nukes on a Blog, Congress, Navy, Posture Review, FY 2011 Budget Request, Trident (all tags)

Get Real Nick!

Gordon Brown's response to Liberal Democrat candidate Nick Clegg's suggestion that the UK should review its like-for-like renewal of Trident, especially in light of President Obama's view that terrorists with nuclear material are the number one risk to international security:

'Get Real Nick, Get Real!' What would we do if we were threatened by Iran or North Korea?'  

Read more

Nukes on a Blog, Trident, UK, North Korea, Iran Watch (all tags)

Was it just an April Fools joke? Yesterday the Associated Press reported that the United States had test-fired a nuclear-capable Trident missile as part of a military drill with Saudi Arabia. The launch may have come in response to Saudi and Gulf Arab concerns over Iran's evolving nuclear weapons program.

A defense official in Washington confirmed that the missile launch took place late last week and was part of a demonstration. The official also stated that U.S. Missile Defense Agency head Lt. Gen. Patrick O'Reilly was present. The Pentagon has since denied that any missile was fired and states that while O’Reilly was in the region last week, he was not present at any launch.

Regardless of the 'he said she said' of it all, the news draws attention to the recent beefing up of defenses around Iran. The recently accelerated initiative, originally launched by the Bush administration, involves nearly the entire Gulf region, including Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain and Kuwait...

Read more

Iran Watch, Missile Defense, Nukes on a Blog, Trident (all tags)

The UK's "Vanguard" class SSBN

A 2006 MOD White Paper said that the UK’s current fleet of Trident ballistic missile submarines would have to be retired in the early 2020s, estimating that it would take around 17 years to design, manufacture, and commission the replacement boomers.  After a controversial vote in the House of Commons in 2007, it looked certain that the UK would replace its Vanguard class submarines as a key part of an extension plan to its at-sea ‘Trident’ nuclear deterrent.  

Having devoted £7.7 billion in October 2007 for research and design in the initial ‘Concept Phase’ of the replacement program, the UK Government was scheduled to make ‘Initial Gate’ decisions as early as September 2009.  These decisions would have kicked off a series of technical assessments and design work, committing Prime Minister Gordon Brown to pay out some 15% of the estimated £15-20 billion procurement costs for the new submarine.  

In July 2009, the Government decided to delay the design contract until 2010.  In January 2010, it was reported that the Government had postponed making its ‘Initial Gate’ decisions indefinitely, allegedly due to difficulties in agreeing on the type of nuclear reactors needed to power the future submarines.  However, the timing of the announcement casts doubt on the claim that the delay is purely technical in nature.  And as the Vanguard retirement clock continues to tick, suggestions of ‘indefinite’ delays call into question the Government’s commitment to the ‘urgent’ nature of the replacement program, as depicted in the White Paper timetable…

Read more

Nukes on a Blog, Trident, UK, nuclear, D5, Vanguard Submarines (all tags)