Jason Ford,
News editor
This year’s Farnborough International Airshow defied expectations with over $100bn worth of orders and options placed, including $94bn for 856 aircraft and $23bn for 1407 engines.
Away from the deals, last Wednesday afternoon saw Airbus’ A380 seemingly defying gravity to swoop gracefully over the Farnborough show ground, whilst the Eurofighter Typhoon’s take-off was preceded by an awesome clap of thunder that threatened – and failed – to dampen the aircraft’s considerable roar.
Over in Farnborough’s Five building the Typhoon’s UK partner BAE Systems treated assembled media to some “imagineering” that foresees bespoke autonomous aircraft being ‘grown’ in vats currently dubbed ‘chemputers’; an update from Reaction Engines on progress and a timetable for development of the Sabre hybrid rocket engine; and a debrief on the company’s trial of maritime autonomous capabilities, as witnessed recently in the Solent.
The so-called Chemputer could one day provide for relatively quick design, build and deployment of unmanned aerial aircraft, whilst maritime autonomy could help provide persistence at sea that is more suited to machines rather than humans.
It does, however, take decades to deliver military platforms to customers in the armed forces and in that time the nature of warfare and the theatres in which they are fought can change, as can the geopolitical landscape.
Will the UK – as part of NATO – find itself slugging it out in land, sea and air battles, or will the nation’s enemies continue to hide behind civilian clothing to wage guerrilla warfare?
Predictions can be made and contingencies planned for but the big question of the day is whether Britain needs a nuclear deterrent, a motion for which is being debated today in Parliament.
Many argue that Trident – and the non nuclear-armed Astute Class of hunter-killer submarines being built by BAE Systems in Barrow-in-Furness – are relics from the Cold War era and are now irrelevant. Others have opined that today’s motion is a Tory ploy to highlight divisions in the Labour Party. But then there are those who are looking at this question from the perspective of engineering, manufacturing and the talent pipeline that a new fleet of four nuclear-armed ‘Successor-class’ submarines would give the nation.
Successor – the vessel to replace the Royal Navy’s Vanguard subs – would enter service in the 2030s and have an operational life of 30 years. According to EEF, construction and through-life sustainment of the new submarines will support over 30,000 UK jobs and cost £31bn, with £10bn factored in for programme contingency.
While the vessel would not be available for export, equipment and systems on board would be. Furthermore, EEF maintains that the programme will make a major contribution to the development of technologies and techniques – such as sensor systems, command & control systems, plus advanced materials – that can be spun-out to other advanced engineering sectors.
Then there is the argument surrounding the loss of capability if the UK doesn’t progress with the new submarines, which would undo 115 years experience and tradition, or the view that numerous SMEs could be brought into the submarine supply chain for the first time if Successor goes ahead.
Is Trident and the Successor programme a Cold War relic or essential part of our defence capabilities? Let us know below.
From one polarising discussion to another and word that a petition has been started regarding the terms of Britain’s withdrawal from the European Union. David Robinson helped found the former DTI’s first nanotechnology programme and is director of the nanotech, optical systems and space industry start-up consultancy PSI-Tran. His petition states: “We require any Brexit deal preserves UK access to EU collaborative R&D programs” and interested parties can find out more and sign at this address: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/150220.
The only way to be certain about whether to have Trident is to dispense with it – and an incorrect choice would be catastrophic
Assymetric threats are additional to existing threats, they don’t replace them. With an ever more resurgent Russia and others in the world, we need the deterrent as much as we ever did.
The problem with Asymmetric threats or any other kind is that a state cannot prepare after the event or once the threat is realized as imminent given the nature of the preparation required. It is all long terms strategic commitment, not knee jerk reaction. The headline ‘Britain hit by nuclear missiles, government orders new ballistic submarines ‘ would not have demonstrated an effective deterrent capability.
All we have to do is to watch the episode of “Yes Prime Minister” where the PM is asked to say exactly when he would be forced to press the button to be reminded of their futility….
But they keep our top brass at the top table which suits their ego enormously!…….
And now we can see what the “enemy” can do with a truck it scares the life out of me what they could do with a hundred £1000 drones or even a £100 computer.
We need a modern integrated defence system not a cold war masterpiece.
I do not belive we should have an “attack” force
david james
Would this SIGNIFICANT sum of money not be better spent on a useful weapons system to nullify the threat of nuclear weapons? For the same money we could develop multiple missile defence systems & still have change left over for EU membership (and probably a new hospital every week….) Why fork out so much for something we never intend to use, has a negligible impact on our national security (do we really consider ourselves more safe than say Germany!?) & within its lifetime will be rendered obsolete. The world & technology is quickly moving on from submarines & ICBMs. Lets not spend an absolute fortune on these museum pieces….
Because, as the US found out with its attempts to develop ABM systems during the Cold War, the cost of an interceptor missile is significantly higher than a single ICBM which itself can potentially carry up to 10 reentry vehicles. A viable ABM system is much more expensive than a simple nuclear deterrent.
As for the argument about it “never being used”, almost all of the conventional weapons procured by the UK during the last 50 years were “never used” either. Perhaps we should just disband the armed forced entirely.
OK keep your heads in the sand then! The whole object of a DETERRENT is that it is not used, but may well be IF an enemy is stupid enough to let loose a nuclear weapon on the UK. It kept the USSR at bay all those years and IS still a necessity. As for actually pressing the big red button, as long as the other side believes you will, that is sufficient. To suggest that unilateral disarmanent will persuade others to do so is a risk I would not contemplate.
we have diminishing human forces numbers, no matter what the alternative strategy to appease the enemy here, abroad, it will never be enough.
Do we repeat when another Middle east crisis occurs the mess of the last two ridiculous attempts at changing almost alien thinking against the west.
Talk, talk, talk, doesn’t cure the issues either.
Ever since the dawn of man the only way to stop being hit with a big stick is to have ones own big stick. The world is still, unfortunately, of the same mind set, but until that changes, and it won’t be before 2030, we MUST have a deterrent against those who want to impose their will on us my military might. It is impossible for the UK to raise and equip an army big enough to defend ourselves from much larger and more belligerent countries, but the threat of nuclear retaliation will cause them to think twice. I lived through most of the Cold War, including the Cuba crisis, and without NATO and its nuclear deterrent the world, including Britain, would be a very different place.
What’s the point of an expensive retaliatory nuclear “deterrent” weapon, which will only be enhancing old technology, when one decent nuke judiciously targeted could wipe out UK?
Better spend all that money on development of space technology, which will be just as “high-tech”, if not more so, and much more relevant to the future of this country and of the people engaged in it.
Essential. It’s an uncertain and worrying world, and we don’t want to destabilise things further by binning our nuclear deterrent.
Dead costs. Can’t do anything with it. And it will have high operation and maintenance costs.
Better would be to use that money and put it into our infrastructure and NHS. Sewers, sewage treatment plants, flood protection (plains, coast, rivers). All that work would create jobs. Jobs and a stable life could reduce alcohol and drug abuse and NHS costs.
If we want to improve this island, then we should improve it and not get lured into an arms race that will create only costs and increase security risks.
The deterrent is clearly important to our security. The only question is does this mean the funds going into it will divert from the conventional weapons and kit which our armed forces have been lacking already? In this economic climate I can’t see an increase in funding for defence any time soon…
Good day everyone. Just a note, thinking about the last war and how the German U-Boats literally almost brought the aid to the British Isles to a stop. There was no vessel that could protect the flow of goods until later in the war. Hindsight is 20/20. We should consider these things when looking to the future protection of our countries.
Today we have fire departments “in case of a fire” – pro-active for the most part. We have police “in case someone is in need of saving and to protect against lawlessness”. The police are both pro-active and re-active. Same is true of our militaries! I think the past lessons of war are such that we should ALWAYS expect the unexpected. If a weakness in our defenses is detected, it can easily be exploited. No one wants to spend billions on just a whim. But careful planning for the unexpected….and our Towers were the unexpected……requires in depth study-analysis and sometimes best guesstimate of what an adversary may do to our countries. Sometimes the lines are not clearly defined as to how we protect our nations. I would prefer to error on the side of caution rather than saying nope, don’t need it, it’s outdated. The Russians have definitely stepped up the game of provocation, and the Chinese are doing it with their island building military bases.
The question of “Do we need submarines?” I think for the British Isles the answer is yes. Maybe not in the sense that America uses subs, but for protection of coastal waters, I believe the subs would be a very intricate part of the coast line defenses. Subs can patrol the depths with stealth looking for and protecting against the underwater threats that could from the seas. Surface ships cannot do this alone. And then there is the question of who or what is protecting the surface ships? Subs do this better than anything else.
A deterrent only works if it deters. The US has a lot of “deterrents” and where are the world trace centre towers now? All their deterrent obviously didn’t work. France has nuclear arms and what did they help against recent terror attacks?
Another deterrent might be: I do not want to waste my time on attacking others. I have more joy in planting trees.
Motivation.
Check out subway cars in Hong Kong and ask yourself why is there no graffiti?
We might not find a cause but perhaps a correlation?
All valuable comments-because for the most part they are made by Engineers and technologists?
Those made by ‘others’ -less well educated [lets teach them about the Romans and Greeks and then make ’em our leaders?] less so. Mrs May has some of the scientific method [geography] but whether that is enough to deal with the Yes, Prime Minister Sir Humphrys who have ruled for centuries, I doubt! Perhaps ‘they’ had a role when conflict was conducted at arm’s length between thousands…but the advance of technology has altered that: and should alter the thinking behind our response to a threat. I was in the USSR in 1970 -a nation according to received and perceived wisdom in the USA, which was close to nuclear parity, had missiles that could blow our socks-off (in 45 minutes -what is known as a sexed-up Blair?) and which was intent on domination. The USSR was coming apart in 1970: its amazing it took so long to do so: but any grouping in which Civil Servants -those who are not financial astute, by definition will fail?
Mike B
Well unfortunately we aren’t going to get a “bigger” stick since we’re in the region of 6000 warheads short of the country we’re looking to deter (lets be honest the ONLY purpose of these missiles is to try and prevent a full scale nuclear attack by Russia, and it’s debatable what effect they have). Now you could argue that someone unhinged enough to sign the death warrant of millions upon millions of civilians is probably quite willing to chance a couple of of his own cities as collateral in order to get a telling first strike while he sits in the safety of one of his bunkers but I digress. Wouldn’t it be nice if we spent that money (and there is going to be a lot of it) on developing a new type of stick that makes old sticks totally irrelevant. What a lovely world it would be to be free of any threat of missile attack, hell we could make a fortune selling it to the rest of the world. On a different note, I bet Putin is absolutely delighted we’ve decided to spend an enormous wedge of our defence budget on something he’ll only ever encounter on his terms….
My neighbour looks dodgy. Think I’ll spend a few million on a Challenger tank, which I’ll park in my back garden just in case he tries anything. The kids will go hungry, and some bills won’t get paid, but at least it will mitigate every threat and I’ll feel safe. Who needs diplomacy anyway. Enough said?
Sadly, the Nuclear Defence Option for the UK is required even more than when it was ‘just a deterrent’ – Middle Eastern countries are acquiring the Technology, and the UK is in their sights. As an Island Nation, the natural and essential Force Projection comes from the Navy and high-tech Submarines.
The “War is over – why do we need weapons ?” attitude is reminiscent of post WWI attitudes – and lack of Investment in aircraft technology nearly cost the UK WWII.
‘Boots on the ground’ will always be essential – and for the record, asymmetric warfare has been with us for Centuries.
Instead of Bleating, we need some serious Planning with built-in Flexibility. With regard to Diplomacy, that works well for the Countries with the most powerful, advanced, weapon teechnology.
By the way, your iPhone and iPad exist because of Research for Military purposes.
By the way, your iPhone and iPad exist because of Research for Military purposes.
And the turret rings (strong enough to contain the recoil from larger and larger guns!) on all tanks had/have their roots in the Noble Comb: used to process wool from about 1850! The reason that the South could manage to sustain the American Civil War for as long as they did was because there was machinery in the South capable of creating spindle lubrication grouves (an almost exact parallel to rifling in gun-barrels) I could go on: plough-shares to swords? yes please.
Apropos the ‘serious planning -v-bleating’ comment: If I find out what you are doing, I can quickly come-up with an answer. If I find out how you are thinking, and perhaps more importantly, how you have been trained to think, I can come up with the answer before you have posed the question!