Former US Defence Secretary Robert Gates recently decried the UK’s conventional force cuts making it clear that the UK’s ability to conduct global operations as a major US partner would be threatened. In doing so, Gates was pointing out the obvious implications of the Chief of the Defence Staff General Sir Nick Houghton’s December speech at the Royal United Services Institute.
I was therefore heartened by Sir Nick Harvey’s recent LDV post, where he accepts that the conventional force cuts will constrain the international role to which he aspires. He then logically makes the point that Trident is expensive, and we should make savings in Trident to invest in the conventional forces. In his article, he trumpets the potential £4-8bn of savings that would be released by the “part-time Trident” option he piloted through Conference last September.
What is remarkable about Sir Nick’s position is not the £4bn he saves, but the missed opportunity to save £25 – 30bn in capital and £150bn over 40 years by not renewing Trident at all. After all, if you’re serious about the conventional forces, isn’t £25bn a bigger prize than £4bn?
I understand that the UK may be not ready to give up nuclear weapons entirely, even though no one, including the LibDems’ own Trident Alternatives Review, can provide a coherent strategic rationale for retaining them. But given the US nuclear guarantee, we should consider significantly cheaper alternatives that would provide a nuclear option against those emergent nuclear threats.
The Trident Alternatives Review has been widely criticised for not considering a non-nuclear option. It also closed off all of the non-Trident nuclear options. The real concern, confirmed by Danny Alexander in his conference fringe, was that the Review asked the wrong question about a free-fall nuclear bomb: instead of asking how much it would cost and how long it would take to build an existing design, the Review posed the question about a new design.
This has led to the current impasse. According to page 12 of the Review, a new freefall bomb would take 14 years to construct and cost £8-10bn to design. But it isn’t a secret that British nuclear warheads have been based on American designs since 1957/58; are Government really saying that the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston has been so denuded of capability that it will take 14 years to build new free fall bombs to an existing American design?
Presumably not.
The latest US free fall nuclear bomb, the B-61 Mod 12 is priced at $25m per weapon – making it more expensive than if it were made of solid gold. Assuming that each of the British production run of a 50 B-61 Mod 12 warheads cost £50m – more than three times the cost of the US bombs – the bill for the weapons would still only be £2.5bn, much less than the £8-10bn estimated in the Review.
Assuming the UK had to pay the whole £0.2bn cost to make the new F-35 aircraft nuclear capable – realistically, it would be reasonable to assume that it would be shared with the US and NATO – and to allocate £0.3bn for RAF and RN infrastructure, and we’re still at £3bn for a nuclear capability against non-NPT states. The delivery platform – F-35 from land bases and, in time, the aircraft carriers – is already in the defence budget. Thus, we not only do we save £22 – 27bn of capital in the next 15 years, but the subsequent running costs are much lower as well.
So I warmly welcome Sir Nick’s conversion to the position that Trident will be procured at the expense of the UK’s conventional military capability, which is what allows us to be a force for good in the world. It’s time for him and the party leadership to complete the logical journey and go for a freefall nuclear force – and invest the savings in the conventional forces, challenging the other parties to do so.
* Toby Fenwick is a Research Associate of the British American Security Information Council (BASIC), has written extensively on the UK Trident programme, and served on the party’s last Trident Working Group. This article is written in a personal capacity.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Inside the secret world of Eel Pie Island
Phil Hutty re-selected for Torridge and Tavistock
Extraordinary cover-up of leak that could have cost lives
St Peter's Free Church Holiday Bible Club #dundeewestend
Brenda Will
Robert Heale
Tristan Ward
Linda Chung
Ruth Bright
27 Comments
“It’s time for him and the party leadership to complete the logical journey and go for a freefall nuclear force – and invest the savings in the conventional forces, challenging the other parties to do so.”
the second half I agree with at least.
the first; free fall nukes from carrier borne f35’s… do you know how often stovl aircraft have to ditch payloads due to the limitations of bring- back- weight in inclement weather conditions?
how many nukes would we have to leave at the bottom of the Solent before it was considered a farce?
Has Toby fallen out with Nick? Not sure what they are putting in the water in Putney at the moment but Toby Fenwick’s argument at times seems more like a personal squabble than something as serious as Trident. I read the Nick Harvey piece to which Toby refers and whilst I do not agree with the conclusion I am not sure that Toby’s approach here is going to win friends and influence people. Maybe that is not his purpose?
An area of agreement between both of them is that Trident is a pointless hole in the pocket. Nobody wants it, nobody voted for it, nobody can think of any real purpose for it. Billions of pounds simply wasted. And whilst I am on the subject why does UKIP never call for a referendum on UK membership of NATO ? If they are so keen on independence why are they like their Tory chums so happy to roll over and fetch a ball every time the Pentagon whistles?
@Jedi: Fair question on bring-back margins for STOVL in hot climates. Length precluded a full map of what I would spend the savings on, but right at the top of the list would be converting the carriers to conventional configuration with meaningful organic AEW and MPA support. (More details in the ‘Dropping the Bomb” pp. 52-53. (www.centreforum.org/assets/pubs/dropping-the-bomb.pdf)). In any event, training with live nuclear warheads as opposed to training aids would be pretty unusual.
@JohnTilley: No, it’s not personal at all. I want the UK to be able to play an significant international role, and as Robert Gates and Nick Harvey have said, Trident’s costs against the available budget would mean that the UK’s conventional force modernisation and manpower levels would be seriously affected. We have time to adjust policy – potentially an area of agreement with Labour – and in my view should do so; hence this article.
@ JT – some responses:
“Nobody wants it, nobody voted for it, nobody can think of any real purpose for it. ”
Not entirely true, given the response to the last Chatham House poll that I am aware of on the matter:
As you may know, the UK’s independent nuclear deterrent is approaching the end of its operational life. Current policy is to replace the Trident submarines with a new fleet of boats, and to replace the ballistic nuclear missiles they carry at a later date. Which of the following options would you favour most?
Renew the deterrent with a broadly comparable, submarine-based ballistic nuclear-weapons system
22 29
Replace the Trident fleet with a cheaper system: a smaller number of boats, or a different form of submarine-based system, or an alternative nuclear weapons system altogether (e.g. an aircraft-borne system)
43 30
Not renew the deterrent and give up nuclear weapons altogether
29 20
Don’t know
5 21
“And whilst I am on the subject why does UKIP never call for a referendum on UK membership of NATO ?”
Because NATO is an intergovernmental defence treaty, and not supranational governance of the most fundamental levers of a democratic society.
@ Toby – “Fair question on bring-back margins for STOVL in hot climates. Length precluded a full map of what I would spend the savings on, but right at the top of the list would be converting the carriers to conventional configuration with meaningful organic AEW and MPA support.”
Fair enough. The other point is that the chosen mechanism to maximise bring-back weight on F35b is Shipborne rolling vertical landing (SRVL), effectively a controlled crash-landing. I’m not sure they accomodated for the possibility of nuclear weapons when they devised that… 😀
What about SLCMs from conventional subs?
what is wrong with nuclear subs?
most of the expense was in developing a nuclear capable cruise missile and warhead.
nuclear subs give UK forces an enormous advantage in range and sensor payload that is ideally suited to an expeditionary foreign policy, and for that reason are considered a strategic industrial capability.
to extend on that answer:
a significant problem with the lib dem proposal was in spending a huge amount on designing a class of 15,000 tonne SSBN’s and then amortising that unit cost over just two units, which has the added effect of distorting our submarine industry even further by reducing the steady drumbeat of orders and designs. thus requiring further investment/subsidy.
If we wanted the most efficient nucelar submarine industry it was possible to afford we’d be look at twelve boats spread over three classes with a new design every nine years, a new boat every 27 months, and a service life of 27 years (if i remember the figures correctly).
All of them sporting a 2×2 CMC to house a trident missile, but none of them necessarily needing to carry a war-load unless a significant threat developed.
Those 4 CMC tubes also being useful for multi-packing cruise missiles and/or special forces delivery in the 99% of time that was outside an Armageddon scenario…
All of this money, effort, and danger (of the most extreme sort) simply to provide a psychological crutch for people who cannot bring themselves to admit that the days of Empire are over.
Jedi. I’m no expert but that makes sense. Aren’t the ICBMs the expensive bit?
or, back in reality, for those who’ve decided they would like an absolute guarantee that no-one can practice 20th century industrial total-war against them.
just sayin’
@ Tabman – “I’m no expert but that makes sense. Aren’t the ICBMs the expensive bit?”
Sure, they aren’t cheap, but we get a massive free-rider discount by leasing american designed missiles, along with all the myriad of infrastructure needed to support them.
Last time i looked at it i concluded that vis-a-vis the French our deterrent cost roughly half as much:
http://jedibeeftrix.wordpress.com/2010/11/08/the-entente-2010-%E2%80%93-what-does-it-mean-whither-will-it-lead/
Because we opted for independence of operation, and not independence of acquisition.
I agree with David-1
@Tabman: There are a number of problems with SLCMs, but the major one is that we’d have to develop a missile and a warhead, both of which are extremely expensive (and take a long time). See the Trident Alternatives Review (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/trident-alternatives-review). When you say “conventional” subs, I presume you mean nuclear-powered, conventionally armed attack submarines; diesel (even AIP) boats don’t have the speed or the range for truly global operations.
@Jedi – the next-gen CMC is a 4×2 8 pack – it’s not clear to me that this can be pared back to 2×2. And the Astutes at 7400t submerged are very large for SSNs; given what else they do, I’m not sure you’d want a larger dual-role submarine. On the drumbeat, I agree – which is why I proposed the investment funded by scrapping Trident include increasing the Astute fleet to 12 SSNs (in line with the original SDSR fleet size) and actively look at a PWR-3 derivative to Australia and Canada.
Sorry to have to say this but our policy on Trident successor is just nuts. We pay almost as much as for a full 24/7 deployment system, whilst having it part time.
A factual point: the Trident Alternatives Review is NOT our party document. It was prepared by the Cabinet Office.
Free fall bombs became obsolete long ago. The V bombers were a stop gap measure before nuclear ICBMs were developed. The world would laugh at us if we went back to that. The idea of using carrier borne F35s with nukes is crazy too.
@ Toby – “On the drumbeat, I agree – which is why I proposed the investment funded by scrapping Trident include increasing the Astute fleet to 12 SSNs (in line with the original SDSR fleet size) and actively look at a PWR-3 derivative to Australia and Canada.”
Regardless of the deterrent that would be a sensible move.
Re: 2×2 CMC – are we sure it is going to be an eight-pack?
http://navylive.dodlive.mil/2012/09/24/next-generation-ohio-class/
http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=69425
9 out of 17 comments in this thread from the TeaPartyJedi. Well that just shows what excites him. That might appear to be an awful lot of compensation for something. I wonder if he drives a bright red sports car as well?
The thing with having foreign weapons on a lease agreement is what happens if we need to deter that same foreign country from bombing us?
I know it’s wildly inconceivable that a war crazy simpleton could ever be elected POTUS and ignore international law but in such circumstances, I’m fairly sure those bombs would not and could not be armed by us to enforce a MAD scenario.
@ JT – so much anger, it must be positively debilitating!
You say “Jedi teaparty” to discredit me, yes? Why not use argument instead?
It just so happens that (among many other things), I am interested in defence and foreign policy, and I drive a daewoo lacetti. Mint green as it happens.
Do you have anything substantive to add…
@Joe King: I agree entirely on the risible cost savings from the part-time Trident option – it is the worst of all possible worlds, and we look ridiculous. This was why I wanted to speak in favour of the amendment at Conference, but unfortunately I wasn’t called.
On the free-fall point, we need to differentiate between strategic and tactical use. Strategically, these are end of the world weapons. If we’re actually in the position of having to use nuclear coercion / actually use nuclear weapons offensively, then we’re into a very different world in which we’re obviously more than ready to lose aircraft and crews, and potentially use nuclear weapons to attack defenses en route to the target(s). Under such an extreme scenario, deterrence has also obviously failed.
My position is that there is no strategic case for Trident – so let’s not buy it – and that there is very limited utility for any UK nuclear system. But if (for a range of reasons) the UK is not willing to get out of the nuclear game entirely, then free-fall (recessed or fielded) would provide very significant savings that could be much more sensibly spent on the UK’s conventional forces. As Joe King says, our current policy is utterly illogical.
Jedi; JT prefers the comfort blanket of class-based “certainties” to reasoned argument. I note he has not responded to the points I raised on the middle class thread.
The way that Toby proposes spending the savings from Trident is pretty smart – converting the two carriers to cat-and-trap operation will hugely enhance their capabilities.
The F-35C (cat-and-trap version) is much cheaper than the F-35B (STOVL) version, and considerably more capable, but the more important value is that there are a numbe r of support aircraft (e.g. Hawkeye, Greyhound) that are only available in CATOBAR, and add tremendously to the capability of the carriers.
The planes aren’t that expensive, but the CATOBAR conversion is well over a billion per carrier. Once you’ve done it, though, the carriers would actually be cheaper to operate.
It’s possibly worth mentioning that if the US next-generation long-range bomber actually ends up happening, then there might be some consideration give to buying a few off the production line. Six or eight bombers would be expensive, but still much cheaper than SSBNs, and could be combined with the free-fall nuclear bombs to give much more range than the F-35 carrier-borne option and would also give a long-range conventional strike capability. The US fleet of B-52s, B-1s and B-2s get used heavily with laser-guided conventional bombs.
The biggest weakness of the Vanguards is that you can’t use them for anything else. Free-fall bombs would be used by the normal planes of the RAF and FAA, meaning that everything in the nuclear chain apart from the bombs themselves would have a conventional use.
So how do we create a world whereby war and terrorism is not necessary? Discuss.
You need some consideration in all this about which countries we might wish to deter. This determines the type of delivery system that would reach them. Trident can reach anywhere, quickly. Submarine-launched cruise missiles can reach much of the world’s surface but not all of it, and might need to transit to a launch point first, so it would not necessarily be quick to respond (may not matter though). Medium sized fighter-bombers (F-35s) based in the UK would mostly have allies within range, not very useful. I would not fancy trying to deter Russia with such a force, they might fancy destroying it on the ground before we had the chance. Medium sized fighter-bombers based on an aircraft carrier has more scope but we have only two carriers planned, no guarantee that one will be ready for action at any given moment (you need three for that) and no guarantee it will be in the right part of the planet when you need it, and we would need to ensure no-one sunk it before it could be used.
The party’s Trident policy is a nonsense, designed to negotiate party conference and not much else. But, Toby, your alternative is a mere fig-leaf, not really credible, it has many of the drawbacks that caused the V-bombers to be replaced in the 1960s.
The only realistic alternative I believe, and still believe, is to put existing Trident warheads in new cruise missiles. The Review of Alternatives to Trident says this cannot be done, the Trident warheads are not suitable but I think they are lying. If it can be done, we save the cost of a new class of Trident subs (which is the main cost of this option, not the missiles or warheads) and we can save the cost of developing a new type of warhead. Reading between the lines is sounds like Aldermaston does not know how to any more anyway. They only know how to make more (replacement) Trident warheads. Space does not permit more detail, it needs to be explained at length, but I think the MoD lied to the Cabinet office about the unsuitability of Trident warheads to be used in cruise missiles. They did so perhaps in the hope that the Review would never be published (publication caused a huge argument in Whitehall) and in desperation because nothing else would derail the case for nuclear armed cruise missiles.
Steve, hi
Always good to gear from you. There are many things in the TAR that I would question, but fitting Trident warheads to cruise is not one of them. Indeed, the cruise section of the report is in my view one of the strongest elements of it.
As you know, Steve, I think that nuclear deterrence against Cold War style adversaries is defunct, as I don’t think that there is a credible threat of nuclear blackmail resulting in the US abandoning western Europe to the Red Army. If we were to return to a full on Cold War scenario, then I could change my mind, but this is so far from reality (ie, call me when the Red Army occupies Poland) that we would have plenty of warning time to return to a Trident based system – remember, Polaris was deployed from a standing start in just over five years; as no-one is talking about removing submarine design and build capacity (quite the opposite, actually), a crash build if required isn’t beyond the bounds of reality.
I think we should agree to disagree on free-fall, but before we do, I want to make clear that I envisage any nuclear use in extremis, and therefore am (i) prepared to take risks with the aircraft and (ii) would not rule out the use of nuclear weapons in order to get to the primary target. This, combined with the fact versus the V-force in the 1960s was required to meet the Moscow criterion without stealth and with primitive EW capability, makes me much more sanguine about the threat that JSF with freefall would pose to putative countries of concern – North Korea, for example. The essence of deterrence is the removal of certainty that we wouldn’t/couldn’t act: and for states of concern, JSF plus freefall is more than enough to remove certainty that the UK couldn’t act.