Alternatives to RN Dreadnought SSBN programme

[uk 75]

Given the disastrous state of the UK economy and the volatile political environment since 2008 it is remakable to say the least that the RN has secured the building of 4 Dreadnought class SSBN.
As in 1962 and 1982 there seems little to choose between going with a small force of subs or getting out of the nuclear derrent altogether.
Historically, alternatives notably based on air launched cruise missiles have been proposed.
Ground Launched cruise would have all the problems which plagued the US INF deployment in the 80s or the planned Blue Streak silos in the late 50s.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Given the disastrous state of the UK economy and the volatile political environment since 2008 it is remakable to say the least that the RN has secured the building of 4 Dreadnought class SSBN.
As in 1962 and 1982 there seems little to choose between going with a small force of subs or getting out of the nuclear derrent altogether.
Historically, alternatives notably based on air launched cruise missiles have been proposed.
Ground Launched cruise would have all the problems which plagued the US INF deployment in the 80s or the planned Blue Streak silos in the late 50s.

The advantage of subs is that they're almost impossible to find once at sea. Can't find the missiles, can't prevent the second strike. Trident 2s also have the range to cover their targets while still tied up at the pier.

ALCMs require their carrying aircraft to be in the air and orbiting some 1500nmi away from their targets to be a current deterrent.

As in 1962 and 1982 there seems little to choose between going with a small force of subs or getting out of the nuclear derrent altogether.

That's kinda the key point. Either you have subs (expensive!!! but solid deterrent) or you need a lot more missiles and bombers. And the UK just doesn't have enough land area to disperse missile silos and air bases.

 

[zen]

Given the disastrous state of the UK economy and the volatile political environment since 2008

No it hasn't.

it is remakable to say the least that the RN has secured the building of 4 Dreadnought class SSBN.

It is remarkable that limited faith and limited ambition produce limited outcomes

As in 1962 and 1982 there seems little to choose between going with a small force of subs or getting out of the nuclear derrent altogether.

Always the lack of any choice but nothing or nearly nothing?
Are you unable to see anything more?

Historically, alternatives notably based on air launched cruise missiles have been proposed.

Which only makes sense in much more substantial scale. Better to invest in IRBMs. As more would get through

 

[Scott Kenny]

Which only makes sense in much more substantial scale. Better to invest in IRBMs. As more would get through

The UK doesn't have the land area to house IRBMs.

 

[uk 75]

Zen as you know I like to try and underpin my threads as far as possible in reality. I am more than happy to read your counter propositions:

state of UK between 2008 and 2023?

number of Dreadnought boats?

viable alternatives to Trident or even fanciful ones?

 

[uk 75]

A UK mobile IRBM (using a suitably rugged and go anywhere TEL) could make use of the large amount of land in Britain owned by the Crown.

Assuming the same warheads as our Tridents and a missile in the IRBM category about thirty missiles could remove Moscow and Putingrad (sorry Lenin).

Unlike Trident which could remove Beijing or the Gorges Dam if necessary it would be a limited option.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Alternatives to Trident:

About 12x SSGNs with nuclear Tomahawks/equivalent, each with two crews, dedicated to the deterrent mission. More boats needed due to shorter range weapons, meaning more time spent getting to Alert Patrol area and less time in the patrol area for the same length of time at sea. (See also how US deterrent went from 41 SSBNs to 18 when Trident came online). This means 8x more reactors built and 16x more crews found and trained.

If you drop the second crew, you will need 2x more SSGNs. Typical single crew deployment is 6 months out, 6 months in refit, 6 months in work-ups, cycle repeats; 12 ships needed to have 3 at sea. Typical dual crew deployment is 3 months out on blue crew, one month in while both crews and the shipyard do refit, 3 months out on gold crew, one month in while both crews and shipyard do refit, cycle repeats; 4 ships needed to have 3 at sea.



IRBM based on Polaris, rolling around in trucks like Midgetman. Might be cheaper, but also invites more nuclear attacks on UK soil to destroy UK missiles. Requires significant investment in troops to escort the launchers, and requires at least 2x as many trucks and escorts as missiles to have decoys.

(edit for spelling)

 

[Yellow Palace]

About 12x SSGNs with nuclear Tomahawks/equivalent, each with two crews, dedicated to the deterrent mission. More boats needed due to shorter range weapons, meaning more time spent getting to Alert Patrol area and less time in the patrol area for the same length of time at sea. (See also how US deterrent went from 41 SSBNs to 18 when Trident came online). This means 8x more reactors built and 16x more crews found and trained.

Funnily enough, that was what the British official studies found. Which I provided references to the last time @uk 75 suggested something cheaper than Trident.

If you don't want the UK to pay for Trident missiles and the submarines to carry them, advocate for the UK abandoning its nuclear deterrent. There is no alternative which is militarily effective, politically acceptable, and cheaper.

Typical dual crew deployment is 3 months out on blue crew, one month in while both crews and the shipyard do refit, 3 months out on gold crew, one month in while both crews and shipyard do refit, cycle repeats; 4 ships needed to have 3 at sea.

That's Port and Starboard crews to you!

 

[uk 75]

Thanks everyone for coming up with lots of info and backgound.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Funnily enough, that was what the British official studies found. Which I provided references to the last time @uk 75 suggested something cheaper than Trident.

If you don't want the UK to pay for Trident missiles and the submarines to carry them, advocate for the UK abandoning its nuclear deterrent. There is no alternative which is militarily effective, politically acceptable, and cheaper.

Sadly.

That's Port and Starboard crews to you!

Oh, is that the UK terminology? (Blue and Gold is USN)

 

[zen]

The UK doesn't have the land area to house IRBIRBMs

It has enough.

Zen as you know I like to try and underpin my threads as far as possible in reality. I am more than happy to read your counter propositions:

state of UK between 2008 and 2023?

number of Dreadnought boats?

viable alternatives to Trident or even fanciful ones?

Firstly in the balance of cost to effectiveness, the Trident and Vanguard SSBN force IS the cheapest option.
EVERY other option is more expensive for the same capability.

Second
It is entirely possible to afford a more substantial force, albeit either by the means of increased defence expenditure or by decreasing other conventional force expenditure.

As an aside though relevent the FRES to Ajax fiasco has cost more than the entire Carrier programme. Or to put it another way the British Army could have reequipped itself upto and including a new fleet of MBTs for the cost of what has been frittered away for less than 600 vehicles of questionable utility. Of which far far far fewer have actually been delivered.

And in context that could have funded more than than just a fifth SSBN. Frankly we could have funded 9 Astutes as well for that.
Which would really have helped facilitate AUKUS now.

It is within our capability to develop our own ICBM.

Though I'm sure certain voices will always favour anything that isn't a UK product.

The argument for land based silos and mobile ICBM is frankly the argument for ABM. Which is fundamentally a sign one values the country enough to try to defend it.

I would add it's also possible to patrol be vessel around the UK coast and from within the natural bastion of the Irish sea. Which the RN and RAF can effectively close of access to.

 

[Scott Kenny]

It is within our capability to develop our own ICBM.

Though I'm sure certain voices will always favour anything that isn't a UK product.

It wasn't within your capability/timeline to develop an SLBM back in the 1960s with Polaris.

It may be now, and there's arguments either way. Lots cheaper to buy a set of 4-5 missile compartments designed by the US than to try to design your own with all the pieces parts involved.

The argument for land based silos and mobile ICBM is frankly the argument for ABM. Which is fundamentally a sign one values the country enough to try to defend it.

I would add it's also possible to patrol be vessel around the UK coast and from within the natural bastion of the Irish sea. Which the RN and RAF can effectively close of access to.

That is a very small chunk of water to hide one submarine in, let alone the 3 that should be at sea 24/7.

 

[zen]

That is a very small chunk of water to hide one submarine in, let alone the 3 that should be at sea 24/7.

You think you can get enough capability into that sea past the UK defences?

 

[PMN1]

Something that has puzzled me a bit with the SSBN basing and keeping Faslane is the argument that its closer to the patrol areas and so reduces the time taken to get to those patrol areas..

That was probably the case with Polaris but with Trident, surely the available areas suddenly mushroomed?

And doesn't the collision between the RN and French SSBN in 2009 suggest that Faslane is not exactly the closest RN base to transit or patrol areas?

Also, the French do not seem to have been hampered much by not having a SSBN base as far north as Faslane.

 

[Scott Kenny]

You think you can get enough capability into that sea past the UK defences?

Yes.

At least as an American we can get a Seawolf or Virginia in there unless you had 24/7 active sonar nets going. Hide on top of one of the WW1/WW2 wrecks to mess with MAD.

Russians could carpet bomb the area with MIRVs, and maybe sneak a Yasen in there. Would need to be their quietest boat.

 

[WatcherZero]

The French SSBN's tend to sit just off their coast ranging out to the mid North Atlantic likely taking advantage of the subtropical front. While the Trident could reach western Russia from the mid Atlantic, the Royal Navy tends to head out into the Northern part of Atlantic a short hop from the Arctic which extends their missile coverage to the Russian far east. Its likely they collided as the French sub was returning further north than it normally would to take advantage of the surface weather conditions or the RN boat was travelling further south for the same reason.

I presume the Norwegian/North Atlantic Currents also provide good acoustic protection.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I presume the Norwegian/North Atlantic Currents also provide good thermoclines.

The Gulf Stream makes a very good thermocline, it's probably 4degC warmer than the surrounding ocean...

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

You think you can get enough capability into that sea past the UK defences?

You just drop a barrage of warheads down the Irish Sea.

 

[zen]

Russians could carpet bomb the area with MIRVs,

All not going towards other targets. A massive expenditure of the most precious weapons.
A trade of thousands for less than 150 on a single submarine, or similar on ships patroling that Sea.
Ignoring that other SSBN are elsewhere and will launch even if your strike is successful.

And all in the act, defining the situation as one of immediate launch.
Because any mass launch towards the UK, effectively boils options down to 'revenge for our impending deaths' or 'do nothing and die anyway'.

As for

maybe sneak a Yasen in there

An assumption you can do so undetected.

 

[Scott Kenny]

As for
[me: "maybe sneak a Yasen in there"]
An assumption you can do so undetected.

If you don't have active sonar going 24/7, then a quiet submarine can get in there.

When the USN and UKRN can send submarines into Russian ports (without any charts!) and get away clean, there's no way that the Irish Sea can be made secure enough.

 

[Yellow Palace]

Something that has puzzled me a bit with the SSBN basing and keeping Faslane is the argument that its closer to the patrol areas and so reduces the time taken to get to those patrol areas..

That was part of the argument for basing the Polaris submarines there. Basing the follow-on system there made sense to minimise cost on duplicating existing facilities.

You could move it, but you'd have to to find a suitable site (not easy) and build all new support infrastructure, at considerable cost.

 

[GK Dundas]

That was part of the argument for basing the Polaris submarines there. Basing the follow-on system there made sense to minimise cost on duplicating existing facilities.

You could move it, but you'd have to to find a suitable site (not easy) and build all new support infrastructure, at considerable cost.

Mind you, it might worth it just to watch the Scottish Nationalists get all worked up decrying the move and it was being screaming that the Fastlane "stolen" by the English.
I suspect that the fact that the SNP has decried the very existence of the facility for decades . Wouldn't slow them down in the slightest.
Yeah, I have a weird sense of humour.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Mind you, it might worth it just to watch the Scottish Nationalists get all worked up decrying the move and it was being screaming that the Fastlane "stolen" by the English.
I suspect that the fact that the SNP has decried the very existence of the facility for decades . Wouldn't slow them down in the slightest.
Yeah, I have a weird sense of humour.

I see "heckling the idiots" is still a spectator sport in the UK...

Gets hazardous at times in the US, especially around UC Berkeley campus. But a friend did manage to tear gas a group of protesters because of it. He showed up there after boot camp, saw the Berzerkeley folks up in arms about something, mad enough that the local cops had gas masks ready to wear. He heckles the protesters, they throw a rock at him, police start launching tear gas. Friend takes off his flannel shirt, scoops up a tear gas grenade in it, and runs around the protesters to give them all a taste of fire.

 

[Yellow Palace]

I suspect that the fact that the SNP has decried the very existence of the facility for decades . Wouldn't slow them down in the slightest.

No, they'd celebrate the decision to remove anything nuclear from Scotland... then it would dawn on them that that meant not only the Trident submarines, but also the fleet submarines. And the MCM vessels that are there to protect them. And then there'd be no Navy presence worth mentioning in Scotland.

This would be taken as evidence of how London doesn't respect Scotland enough to base any ships there to 'protect Scottish waters', which is a complaint they've already started raising. It should be noted, the only RN ships which are primarily employed in UK waters are those doing fisheries protection work. A job which has been carried out in Scotland by a separate agency since 1882.

 

[Scott Kenny]

No, they'd celebrate the decision to remove anything nuclear from Scotland... then it would dawn on them that that meant not only the Trident submarines, but also the fleet submarines. And the MCM vessels that are there to protect them. And then there'd be no Navy presence worth mentioning in Scotland.

This would be taken as evidence of how London doesn't respect Scotland enough to base any ships there to 'protect Scottish waters', which is a complaint they've already started raising. It should be noted, the only RN ships which are primarily employed in UK waters are those doing fisheries protection work. A job which has been carried out in Scotland by a separate agency since 1882.

I'd suggest that they ask those cities in the US that grew up to support a military base, only to have that base closed during BRAC.

Many of the locals found out the hard way just how much money a base puts into the local economy.

 

[Yellow Palace]

I'd suggest that they ask those cities in the US that grew up to support a military base, only to have that base closed during BRAC.

Many of the locals found out the hard way just how much money a base puts into the local economy.

They know, and have plenty of examples in Scotland. But they're ideologically opposed to nuclear anything, and have little to no understanding of security matters.

 

[Nik]

IIRC, when the SNP looked set to take Scotland independent and non-nuclear, every pub & club around dreary, dank Faslane played, "We're off to sunny Spain, E Viva Espana !!" on repeat.

Gibraltar awaited...

I'm told the deciding factor was not losing that business, but the many UK banks who, for legal reasons, must relocate their ops & call-centres from Glasgow / Edinburgh region, which would be 'Off-Shore', to 'South of the Border'...