Reply to thread

Message

i.) I don't think of it that way. The UK benefits by the US maintaining its financial stability. New capital expenditures of USD125Billion to transport 35 yo missile technology doesn't make fiscal sense. This is especially true since the US is ready to spend on tech dev for ballistic missile production. The result of which could be all new tech for GBSD, SLBM's and ballistic missile defense systems. I believe the UK leases these missiles.

The US has invested in Columbia already as well. ~USD1.5Billion the last two years IIRC. BTW...Do we know the sum the UK has already invested? The US and UK are both prepared to invest heavily in acquisition. So I don't think that particular argument works. There's lots of ways to smooth those feathers in future systems.

Also - I'm not suggesting the tech dev stops. What's being developed for Columbia should be repurposed for Virginia - including the S1B 42year reactor.

ii.) That's not an impossible sell. The analysis was finished in 2013. The world has changed significantly since then. Based on strategic changes we need to reallocate resources.

2014 - Russia invades Crimea
2014 - PRC sets up oil rig in SCS - rams&sinks Vietnamese fishing boat
2015 - PRC transforms Mischief Reef into an Island
etc
etc

<blockquote data-quote="NeilChapman" data-source="post: 297691" data-attributes="member: 11561">i.)&nbsp; I don't think of it that way.&nbsp; The UK benefits by the US maintaining its financial stability.&nbsp; New capital expenditures of USD125Billion to transport 35 yo missile technology doesn't make fiscal sense.&nbsp; This is especially true since the US is ready to spend on tech dev for ballistic missile production.&nbsp; The result of which could be all new tech for GBSD, SLBM's and ballistic missile defense systems.&nbsp; I believe the UK leases these missiles.&nbsp; The US has invested in Columbia already as well.&nbsp; ~USD1.5Billion the last two years IIRC.&nbsp; BTW...Do we know the sum the UK has already invested?&nbsp; The US and UK are both prepared to invest heavily in acquisition.&nbsp; So I don't think that particular argument works.&nbsp; There's lots of ways to smooth those feathers in future systems.&nbsp; Also - I'm not suggesting the tech dev stops.&nbsp; What's being developed for Columbia should be repurposed for Virginia - including the S1B 42year reactor.&nbsp; ii.)&nbsp; That's not an impossible sell.&nbsp; The analysis was finished in 2013.&nbsp; The world has changed significantly since then.&nbsp; Based on strategic changes we need to reallocate resources.2014 - Russia invades Crimea 2014 - PRC sets up oil rig in SCS - rams&amp;sinks Vietnamese fishing boat2015 - PRC transforms Mischief Reef into an Islandetcetc</blockquote>

[QUOTE="NeilChapman, post: 297691, member: 11561"] i.) I don't think of it that way. The UK benefits by the US maintaining its financial stability. New capital expenditures of USD125Billion to transport 35 yo missile technology doesn't make fiscal sense. This is especially true since the US is ready to spend on tech dev for ballistic missile production. The result of which could be all new tech for GBSD, SLBM's and ballistic missile defense systems. I believe the UK leases these missiles. The US has invested in Columbia already as well. ~USD1.5Billion the last two years IIRC. BTW...Do we know the sum the UK has already invested? The US and UK are both prepared to invest heavily in acquisition. So I don't think that particular argument works. There's lots of ways to smooth those feathers in future systems. Also - I'm not suggesting the tech dev stops. What's being developed for Columbia should be repurposed for Virginia - including the S1B 42year reactor. ii.) That's not an impossible sell. The analysis was finished in 2013. The world has changed significantly since then. Based on strategic changes we need to reallocate resources. 2014 - Russia invades Crimea 2014 - PRC sets up oil rig in SCS - rams&sinks Vietnamese fishing boat 2015 - PRC transforms Mischief Reef into an Island etc etc [/QUOTE]

Verification