Jon Excell
Editor
The long-awaited defence review, coupled with the announcement that the MoD will have to foot the bill for a Trident replacement, could have a profound impact on the UK’s defence industry. Meeting the estimated £20bn cost of the nuclear programme from a budget running at around £35bn would, most observers agree, make it impossible to maintain current capabilities.
Trident or no Trident, the MoD will have to make some uncomfortable sacrifices anyway, with rumours suggesting that the UK may have to sell one of its two new aircraft carriers, and that its entire fleet of Tornado jets could be mothballed. Indeed, according to leaked details published by the Daily Telegraph, the RAF may face the heaviest cuts, losing up to 7,000 personnel and 295 aircraft, reducing the fleet to its lowest level since 1914.
Clearly, defence spending should not be immune from austerity measures, but the government must be careful not to extinguish hard-won areas of UK expertise as it takes the axe to public spending. In this issue, BAE’s top military aircraft engineer Simon Howison speaks of the need to face austerity with continued investment in new technology. In an uncertain world, he says, technologies that don’t appear relevant today could be essential tomorrow. If you don’t invest in the future now, he claims, you risk losing out. It’s an argument that will resonate with other areas of the UK’s technology economy and one that the UK government would do well to heed. Once skills and capabilities have gone it’s hard to get them back again. Intriguingly, in BAE’s case it’s unmanned air vehicles (UAVs), one of the most advanced areas of aerospace development, that Howison believes will help the firm maintain its skills base in the years ahead. ’In order to keep an indigenous UK engineering capability that can actually design an aircraft, I need the UAV business,’ he tells us.
Many believe that Trident has more to do with politics and prestige than national security
Meanwhile, the discussion over spending should finally spark a sensible debate about Trident. The subject certainly polarises opinion. Some, including the Conservatives, argue that Trident is essential to the UK’s future security. But for many others, nuclear weapons have little role to play in countering modern security threats, and Trident has more to do with politics and prestige than security.
The likely solution is that the UK finds a cheaper way of maintaining its place at the nuclear table. Options suggested so far include a scaled-down system that doesn’t require a submarine in the sea all the time, or a land-based deterrent that dispenses entirely with the requirement for a submarine.
Perhaps though, the government might like to consider an altogether more cunning alternative: cancel Trident but don’t tell anyone. The whole point of a submarine-based deterrent is that you never use it and nobody knows where it is. Providing any potential enemy believes it’s there, an imaginary Trident would be just as effective as the real thing and considerably cheaper to maintain.
One of the reasong the Trident submarine is so costly is that hte missile section is bought from the USA and we bolt a nose ant tail section in the UK. How obserd to give taxpayers money to US based companies when we could this ourselves to save money and create jobs.
The Trident was needed in the days of the cold war but since then there are no other countries that have the launch capabilites if the ICBM type of weapons. Like Isreal, other countires are looking to defend themselves against attack from their neighbours (India and Pakistan for instance). BAe recently launched a nuclear powered submarine with conventional weaponry. Surely this is a more useful way to spend our money rather than give it to ‘our cousins’
Having worked in the defence sector related industry for a numbers of years and worked on Astute and recently looked at long lead items for successor if cancelled it would have a massive impact on the wider engineering sector. With a project that is shared with USA and whom will build more than double the UK fleet, engineering companies in the UK have a massive opportunity to be lead suppliers for both the UK and USA programmes. This could be worth billions to UK engineering and UK export coffers.
OK, i keep a fire extinguisher in the kitchen just in case…and some plasters in the cupboard ,,,just in case,,,and a flashlight in the car,,,just in case,,,,can you spot where this is going yet????? We need the RAF at full strength, we need the Navy at full strength and we need the Army at full strength – period. No-one knows where the next threat comes from and bet your bottom dollar that if our enemies see us at a reduced physical strength, how will they hit us?? Physically, not cyber based as some predict – enemies attack based on your vulnerabilities, not your strengths. Penny pinching from the armed forces is a huge mistake that will cost us greatly in the future. Imagain if China go seriously annoyed with the west….their physical capability is already 5 times ours, do we really need to give away more? Margaret Thatcher still has a voice, ask her how we would have handled even the Falklands with half of the kit – doesnt warrant thought does it~?
As an ex-serviceman with over 35 years of experience I have to say that Trident as a deterrent has not worked. The areas of operation during my time have not had any influence on events from the threat of nuclear intervention. The penality clauses may be huge but in the longer term the savings should be greater. Most places that the UK forces are called on to fight in are populated by very commited, low tech fighters and will not be easily scared off by the threat of a nuclear holocaust, just ask them.
the defence budget is 35billion per year the 20bill for Trident is over several years and just about equates to 4 years bankers bonuses. how ridiculous to jeopardise thousands of jobs and lose that technology
would we rather have thousand of people claiming dole for the rest of their lives, how much would that cost !!
’In order to keep an indigenous UK engineering capability that can actually design an aircraft, I need the UAV business,’
Garbage. Utter garbage. Swap “aircraft” for “submarine” and “UAV” for “Trident”. He’d say exactly the same. BAe being more and more determined to mine the trough absolutely dry.
Sorry. I dont believe a word they say any more.
Scaling back, and keeping the fact secret is a good idea, though one would have to place the money in a “Trident budget”, and syphon off that cash very carefully, in order to not give away the fact that there is only an imaginary submarine out there, by leaving a paper trail!
I have been under the impression that the US have ultimate control over the firing of our Trident missiles, which if true means that it is not an independent deterrent at all.
While the nuclear threat of a “British Trident submarine” (under US control) must have the rest of the world trembling, I cannot see how this gives us any kind of shelter from conventional or unconventional attacks. What would be far more cost effective would be to foster more friendly relations of mutual benefit, rather than warlike threats of Mutually Assured Destruction.
Trident is a huge waste of resources at a time when we are facing hardships. It’s time to scrap this American monstrosity and live in the real world.
The problem with alternatives is the speed of missile. Cruise missiles are good but can be intercepted.
How about saving some of our money and comprimising.
Invest in scramjet technology. Use the product as a delivery system for the warhead and the research as a feed for commercial development.
An air launched hypersonic delivery system would be cheaper than trident and more reliable than cruise missiles and the commercial opportunities would be great!
We must maintain a strong defence!
The world is a dangerous place and will not get any better. Trident,Both carriers and the Tornado jets should be kept in service. Cuts are required but not in the defence of our nation.
Never mind just Trident. There are a lot of future defence programmes at threat at the moment. Dealing with a number of customers in the defence industry I am seeing a lot of unease and worried people.
Cuts in the defence equals cuts in British manufacture. Is this the best way to reduce the countries defecit?
those of you who have just commented that the USA has control of our trident deterrent are quite deluded, we work very closely with the US in the maintenance of our capability but that is just it; re-read your history and then you may come to appreciate how closely both nations have depended on each other to get to this point. At the end of the day the nuclear pandoras box has been opened and we have an obligation as a responsible nation to maintain our part of it, the 20Billion for the programme is over quite a long time scale and people must remember that this period of austerity will be over in the next couple of years and there will be an improvement in our socio-economic conditions, yes the MOD has some hard desicions to make but so do all public sector organisations. The future and the smart way to invest or tax money is in developing technologies but the only way that is going to happen is if the desicion making processes in whitehall are made more efficient and to do that you need to remove the dead wieght (i.e senior civil servants).
Could we not not consider an air launched option and use the technology developed by the french for the Rafale?
£20Bn is a conservative estimate.
Greenpeace produced an analysis last year puts the lifetime cost of Trident
replacement at £97bn
See:
http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/files/pdfs/peace/ITFL_trident_report.pdf
The MOD has yet to provide a meaningful response.
Why does the UK need this system other than just to keep up with the Frogs? Other major European states, Canada, Australia manage without it.
A defence minister leaked to the press this week that Trident is safe for now but the QEII carrier is under threat and the retirement of the RAF’s Tornado squadron could be brought forward five years. Expect to see more speculation along these lines before the Strategic Defence and Security review is released in October.
Don’t kid yourselves that decommissionng Trident will be a cheap option.
The UKs nuclear (much reduced)capability has helped prevent a nuclear conflict, thus far.
After so many redundancies within our Armed Forces to be able to afford the new carriers I am shocked to hear mention of selling one even before it’s completion. We desperately need these ships in order to project our military forces (remember the Falklands) and the JSF aircraft that will fly from them are a well overdue enhanced capability replacement for our RAF Harriers (we already got rid of the Navy’s sea Harriers).
In regard to the new carriers being built, i once read a comment which i beleive originated from Admiral Sandy Woodward, the task force commander during the Falklands war, it was on the lines of, building carriers costs very little, its basically free, the companies, employees and the suppliers all pay tax, which pays for the build. Cutting MOD projects and build programes just costs the country more and losses essential skills. Why does the US keep up active naval ship building? it provides jobs, maintains skills and pays it way.