Scotex:What happens to Trident?

[uk 75]

In the spirit of what-if?

Scotland votes to exit the United Kingdom and re-join the EU. As part of the negotiations with the
London Government, the Scottish First Minister insists that all nuclear warheads for the Trident
submarines must leave Scottish territory as soon as Scotland becomes independent. The boats themselves
must move as soon afterwards as possible.

The MOD are asked to consider whether the Trident-based deterrent is still viable without the use of Scotland.
Its answer is "No".

What do we do next?

 

[sferrin]

Doesn't the UK have any other naval bases they could modify?

 

[CJGibson]

Follow the concrete...

Chris

 

[TomS]

Doesn't the UK have any other naval bases they could modify?

They'd probably have to look at Devonport, where the T-Boats are based. But they'd have to reproduce a hell of a lot of Trident-specific infrastructure, no matter where they put them.

 

[Hood]

One might ask the same questions about the P-8 Poseidon support site Boeing are planning to build at RAF Lossiemouth...

The answer is the usual, the politicians dodge the reality of the unthinkable scenarios they create until they happen, and even then they operate in denial.
Personally my view is, if the United Kingdom splinters states then England as the rump state of that political entity has no right or need for pursuing or owning nuclear weapons.

 

[sferrin]

Personally my view is, if the United Kingdom splinters states then England as the rump state of that political entity has no right or need for pursuing or owning nuclear weapons.

That makes no sense. It would have the "right" or need same as ever. Just like France.

 

[Arjen]

You would get a smaller state with a smaller budget than the UK has. Needs/wishes would have to be balanced with what is possible on that smaller budget. International cooperation could enable different decisions, but would also complicate decisions.

Cut (anywhere), or cooperate.

 

[CJGibson]

I believe the term is "Joxit". "Scotex" just doesn't sound right.

Chris

 

[marauder2048]

International cooperation could enable different decisions, but would also complicate decisions.

Doesn't that pretty much describe the UK's current nuclear deterrent?

 

[Arjen]

International cooperation could enable different decisions, but would also complicate decisions.

Doesn't that pretty much describe the UK's current nuclear deterrent?

Cooperate MORE. I don't know what the future holds, but it would be ironic if brexit led to the UK having to share its Trident force with other countries, or lose it altogether. Wait and see.

 

[Michel Van]

To Make things more Complicated
Boris Johnson is new British foreign secretary
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-36789972

this gonna be infernal funny

 

[marauder2048]

International cooperation could enable different decisions, but would also complicate decisions.

Doesn't that pretty much describe the UK's current nuclear deterrent?

Cooperate MORE. I don't know what the future holds, but it would be ironic if brexit led to the UK having to share its Trident force with other countries, or lose it altogether. Wait and see.

Are you distinguishing between operational sharing and cost sharing? For the former, UK Trident is shared by virtue of being subordinated (with the exception of a "supreme national emergency”) to NATO.

 

[Arjen]

Sharing like NATO E-3 and A330 tanker aircraft. Mixed crews, shared operational control, shared support facilities. Possibly highly impractical for missile submarines - which, when the need to spend less pops up, leaves the other option - to cut. Not necessarily limited to submarines.

Are you distinguishing between operational sharing and cost sharing?

No. Ultimately, it all comes down to how much money is available for acquisition, crews, operations or support. If an independent Scotland would want to rid itself of nuclear weapons, a new support facility to replace the one at Faslane would be very costly.

 

[Jemiba]

Please, to keep this thread readable even for those directly concerned (and so
in the end open !), stay to the original topic and avoid pure derision.
Remember. it's actually a theme, that evokes very different feelings, especially for people
in the United Kingdom.

 

[marauder2048]

Sharing like NATO E-3 and A330 tanker aircraft. Mixed crews, shared operational control, shared support facilities. Possibly highly impractical for missile submarines - which, when the need to spend less pops up, leaves the other option - to cut. Not necessarily limited to submarines.

Are you distinguishing between operational sharing and cost sharing?

No. Ultimately, it all comes down to how much money is available for acquisition, crews, operations or support. If an independent Scotland would want to rid itself of nuclear weapons, a new support facility to replace the one at Faslane would be very costly.

The sharing model for E-3 and the tankers makes sense since the shared assets directly support a mixed force.

Personnel costs are a small part of overall SSBN costs: the entire US Trident personnel bill is about $300 million/year. O&M costs are about 4X that. And those figures are for a much larger US SSBN fleet of larger boats with larger crew complements.

The loss of Faslane would be bad but not catastrophic since the UK unique support infrastructure could be reconstituted at Kings Bay, GA in the interim.

 

[Rickshaw]

I wonder why the prospect of the UK leasing their bases in Scotland hasn't been considered? Why is everybody hell-bent on seeing withdrawal as the only option available to the (remainder) UK? The Scottish Government could be sitting, literally on quite a little money earner in that they own the land, whereas the UK has developed the infrastructure.

 

[Arjen]

Faslane is the UK's base for missile submarines. The SNP's position is that on independence, Scotland would remove all nuclear weapons.
The other facilities might be leased, Faslane is a special case.

Personnel costs are a small part of overall SSBN costs: the entire US Trident personnel bill is about $300 million/year. O&M costs are about 4X that. And those figures are for a much larger US SSBN fleet of larger boats with larger crew complements.

I agree manning costs are only a small part of overall costs. There is the psychology of the matter to consider: if the UK subs were to have mixed crews, that would be a very visible reminder of the UK's reduced control over them.

Which brings me to another point:

The loss of Faslane would be bad but not catastrophic since the UK unique support infrastructure could be reconstituted at Kings Bay, GA in the interim.

That's Georgia, USA, right? Since brexit seems to be largely about sovereignty, that move might be unpalatable.
Long before brexit there has been discussion in the UK about replacement of the missile submarines, with some questioning their utility balanced against their cost. If the UK was to lose the facilities at Faslane, dropping the subs would look, in my opinion, like a very real option.

I repeat, I don't know what the future holds in store. Any decisions will be subject to financial considerations. In my opinion, near to the exclusion of all other factors.

 

[marauder2048]

Which brings me to another point:

The loss of Faslane would be bad but not catastrophic since the UK unique support infrastructure could be reconstituted at Kings Bay, GA in the interim.

That's Georgia, USA, right? Since brexit seems to be largely about sovereignty, that move might be unpalatable.
Long before brexit there has been discussion in the UK about replacement of the missile submarines, with some questioning their utility balanced against their cost. If the UK was to lose the facilities at Faslane, dropping the subs would look, in my opinion, like a very real option.

I repeat, I don't know what the future holds in store. Any decisions will be subject to financial considerations. In my opinion, near to the exclusion of all other factors.

UK Trident boats are already required to visit Kings Bay, Georgia, USA to draw Trident D5s from the common pool. Doing interim refit and warhead upload there isn't a huge stretch.

It's probably important to distinguish between operational sovereignty and technical sovereignty; UK Trident is the former and not the latter.

And the US Navy will bend over backwards to keep the UK Trident Successor program afloat since it allows the US Navy to amortize its own SSBN(X) costs over 16 boats rather than 12.

 

[uk 75]

Surely the loss of the Scottish Lochs would force the Trident subs to come and go from Devonport. There are no English ports that give direct access to the Atlantic. France is luckier or am I wrong?

 

[bobbymike]

Which brings me to another point:

The loss of Faslane would be bad but not catastrophic since the UK unique support infrastructure could be reconstituted at Kings Bay, GA in the interim.

That's Georgia, USA, right? Since brexit seems to be largely about sovereignty, that move might be unpalatable.
Long before brexit there has been discussion in the UK about replacement of the missile submarines, with some questioning their utility balanced against their cost. If the UK was to lose the facilities at Faslane, dropping the subs would look, in my opinion, like a very real option.

I repeat, I don't know what the future holds in store. Any decisions will be subject to financial considerations. In my opinion, near to the exclusion of all other factors.

UK Trident boats are already required to visit Kings Bay, Georgia, USA to draw Trident D5s from the common pool. Doing interim refit and warhead upload there isn't a huge stretch.

It's probably important to distinguish between operational sovereignty and technical sovereignty; UK Trident is the former and not the latter.

And the US Navy will bend over backwards to keep the UK Trident Successor program afloat since it allows the US Navy to amortize its own SSBN(X) costs over 16 boats rather than 12.

What else will SSBN(X) and Successor share besides the CMC and the D5?

 

[TomS]

What else will SSBN(X) and Successor share besides the CMC and the D5?

Apparently there is some connection between US reactor/propulsion technology and Successor's PWR-3. There are also agreements on some other technical areas, like towed array sonar integration.

See Appendix B of the linked May 2016 CRS report:

https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/R41129.pdf

 

[bobbymike]

What else will SSBN(X) and Successor share besides the CMC and the D5?

Apparently there is some connection between US reactor/propulsion technology and Successor's PWR-3. There are also agreements on some other technical areas, like towed array sonar integration.

See Appendix B of the linked May 2016 CRS report:

https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/R41129.pdf

Thanks much obliged

 

[NeilChapman]

In the spirit of what-if?

Scotland votes to exit the United Kingdom and re-join the EU. As part of the negotiations with the
London Government, the Scottish First Minister insists that all nuclear warheads for the Trident
submarines must leave Scottish territory as soon as Scotland becomes independent. The boats themselves
must move as soon afterwards as possible.

The MOD are asked to consider whether the Trident-based deterrent is still viable without the use of Scotland.
Its answer is "No".

What do we do next?

The answer will not be 'no'.

The UK/US SSBN programs are intrinsically linked.
UK is the 5th largest economy in the world (even w/o Scotland).
Royal Navy influence has shaped the world for 350 years.
Most littoral areas throughout the world have been influenced by the UK during that time.
UK landmass is uniquely positioned to utilize submerged, mobile ballistic missile launchers.

The UK is a great power with considerable economic, cultural, military, scientific and political influence internationally.

The answer will not be 'no'.

 

[Foo Fighter]

OK, so we get the Scots leaving, they then have to apply to join the EU which is something the Scottish nationalists refuse to accept. The rest of the UK take our submarines and bases and move them to the only other place with the right kind of access to deep waters, Belfast. There is an unused aspect to the Belfast waterways that would be ideal and that is the Harland and Wolf yard. Plentiful supply of deep dry docks and the transit would be similar to the Scottish location. Essentially, the Scots nationalists want to think they have the rest of us over a barrel but the reality will be very different as we will not allow them to bankrupt the rest of us with their ruinous social plans by.

1. Keeping the UK Pound.

2, Retaining fiscal union by retaining the Bank of England as their financial regulatory body.

There is NO way the Scots will be allowed to be the tail wagging the dog, no matter how often and how hard they may try to say so.

 

[uk 75]

Over five years have pased since we discussed what would happen if Scotland held another referendum and left the UK.
The position has got no clearer in the intervening years. The Scottish government still seek a referndum but when and if they will get it is hard to say.
There are no good alternatives to Scottish bases for Trident and other UK forces, plus the manufacturing sites there.
Coupled with the growing likelihood of Sinn Fein winning a majority of seats in Northern Ireland and growing nationalist sentiments in Wales the UK in early 2022 is looking a bit shaky.
The United Kingdom of England as it might one day become (we seem stuck with these unloved two letters UK for a slew of legal and technical reasons)
would still have a population of over 50 million and London and Manchester as key centres.
But back to Trident. The Dreadnought boats (3 or 4 depending on returning inflation) and the Astutes will live at Devonport as there will be nowhere else. But then what