Do we need a like-for-like replacement of Trident?

Original post by Clip

It wasn't a 10 year development programme, because Rapier was being uprgraded and integrated with other stuff up until recently. The original 1970s unit bears only passing resemblance to the thing doing the rounds at the 2012 Olympics. The original thing didn't have the Electro-Optical Tracker or the DN181 radar, either - which contributed in a big way to the high cost of the system as a whole.

I can guarantee you that I'm not mistaking it for anything else. I think I can tell Rapier when I see it.

It's not the second most expensive defence project after trident. If it were it would be in military folklore.

off the top of my head. Military folklore states nimrod AEW, TSR2, euro fighter, blue steel, CVA1. Not rapier.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 43

Only figure I can find for the Rapier is £1.8b, dwarfed massively by the £4b cost of the Nimrod MRA.4. Which is more pertinent as the Nimrod was cancelled, whereas the Rapier has at least been in service since 1970 and been exported around the world.

Reply 44

Hal.E.Lujah

Original post by de_monies

OK valid argument but playing devils advocate here. Let's say it snows pretty much every year, so it makes sense to have grit

We don't have a nuclear war every year...

Snow stays for a couple days.

A nuclear winter would last up to two years.

So, relatively speaking, you've got a window 365x larger that you can prepare for a nuclear war in before it's less of a risky time based financial investment than snow preventatives. Which means if we had preventatives for another 300 years it would still be less of a gamble than worrying about grit for snow every ~~December~~ March.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 45

Will Lucky

11

Original post by Thomas2

I'm not saying we necessarily should abandon it but perhaps the UK could make a more useful contribution to global security by spending the money on its conventional forces which are suffering from years of underfunding?

Are you serious?

Only three other nations have higher spending on their military than us, The US, China and Russia. We have one of the best trained and best funded militaries on earth given our size.

When I hear the suggestion lets increase conventional force strength all I can think is are you actually insane?

Reply 46

Original post by Will Lucky

Are you serious?

Only three other nations have higher spending on their military than us, The US, China and Russia. We have one of the best trained and best funded militaries on earth given our size.

When I hear the suggestion lets increase conventional force strength all I can think is are you actually insane?

Post Afghan, that'll be 120,000 troops sat around in Aldershot and Catterick doing nothing until some politician decides to cut them as part of a cost saving measure.

Trident gives us more bang for our buck, and conventional forces are useless againsta nuclear threat. Consider it as the mouse that roared. You can have the largest standing army in the world and it's useless if the other guys have the bomb.

Reply 47

Original post by Will Lucky

Are you serious?

Only three other nations have higher spending on their military than us, The US, China and Russia. We have one of the best trained and best funded militaries on earth given our size.

When I hear the suggestion lets increase conventional force strength all I can think is are you actually insane?

No, they are wanting an adequately sized Armed Forces for the job(s) they are given by the Government. Our budget is not being used effectively. We waste far too much on equipment at bloated prices, on nonsense posts and on far too many senior officers.
You quote 3 other countries as having bigger budgets than we do. But look at their manpower.

For an island nation to have a navy of around 30,000 people is criminal. Our air force is similarly minute, with fewer and fewer squadrons by the year and the Army is approaching the 100,000 mark.

Reply 48

Original post by Drewski

No, they are wanting an adequately sized Armed Forces for the job(s) they are given by the Government. Our budget is not being used effectively. We waste far too much on equipment at bloated prices, on nonsense posts and on far too many senior officers.
You quote 3 other countries as having bigger budgets than we do. But look at their manpower.

For an island nation to have a navy of around 30,000 people is criminal. Our air force is similarly minute, with fewer and fewer squadrons by the year and the Army is approaching the 100,000 mark.

I'll agree with you on the Navy bit. That needs massivly increasing in Size to at two carriers with CATOBAR and F35C's.
10 Type 45's
14 Type 26s
10 SSNs

And I'm going to be radical here and add

4 SSKs
8 Corvettes.

The last two can be used to free up other assets from ASW tarining, Counter Piracy and in times of war can be your cheap units that you don't mind loosing on risky stuff.

Althuogh our Amphibious capabaility is still strong.

Either way, scrapping Trident isn't going to get you that. And it still doesn't overcome the issue that the other guys can have a tiny military, but Nukes are a massive force multiplier.

Reply 49

InArduisFouette

21

It also has to be noted that the RAF appears smaller through the rationalisation of Strike types to two

Typhoon and (until the f35orfollowing it's binning SuperBug ) Tornado GR4...

Also the Typhoon is a single fleet with the mk4 rather than 2 main fleets( F3 and GR1/4 and fleets within a fleet (e.g. ef3 and ASuW GRs) that the Tonka had ...

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 50

Original post by zippyRN

It also has to be noted that the RAF appears smaller through the rationalisation of Strike types to two

Typhoon and (until the f35orfollowing it's binning SuperBug ) Tornado GR4...

Also the Typhoon is a single fleet with the mk4 rather than 2 main fleets( F3 and GR1/4 and fleets within a fleet (e.g. ef3 and ASuW GRs) that the Tonka had ...

The RAF appears smaller because it is smaller. Having 'only two' types of frontline aircraft is only part of the issue, it's having such a paltry amount of both in service which really affects things.

Reply 51

Original post by Drewski

The RAF appears smaller because it is smaller. Having 'only two' types of frontline aircraft is only part of the issue, it's having such a paltry amount of both in service which really affects things.

Just remember though, the RAF like the Army aren't fighting a WW2 style situation.

A Typhoon Squadron is a lot more capable than a Spitfire Squadron of WW2.

An Infantry Company now can do as much damage, if not more than a regiment from WW2.

The shooty things have got more accurate and more reliable.

The only issue is when you come to the Navy, with the advent of Radar and Sonars that far surpasse what was available in WW2, the problem with the Navy is that they have to spend most of their time with that equipment turned off as it gives their position away. We need more hulls in the Navy. We are an island nation after all.

It would appear that after long last, the Government may be reversing it's East of Suez Strategy.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/unitedarabemirates/10024002/Britain-may-reverse-East-of-Suez-policy-with-return-to-military-bases-in-Gulf.html

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 52

Original post by MatureStudent36

Just remember though, the RAF like the Army aren't fighting a WW2 style situation.

A Typhoon Squadron is a lot more capable than a Spitfire Squadron of WW2.

An Infantry Company now can do as much damage, if not more than a regiment from WW2.

The shooty things have got more accurate and more reliable.

The only issue is when you come to the Navy, with the advent of Radar and Sonars that far surpasse what was available in WW2, the problem with the Navy is that they have to spend most of their time with that equipment turned off as it gives their position away. We need more hulls in the Navy. We are an island nation after all.

It would appear that after long last, the Government may be reversing it's East of Suez Strategy.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/unitedarabemirates/10024002/Britain-may-reverse-East-of-Suez-policy-with-return-to-military-bases-in-Gulf.html

It doesn't matter how capable across the spectrum a plane/regiment/ship is, it can still only be in one place at a time.

Reply 53

Original post by Drewski

It doesn't matter how capable across the spectrum a plane/regiment/ship is, it can still only be in one place at a time.

True, but they have longer legs now.

Spitfire Range = 470miles
Typhoon Range = 750miles

.303 Machine Gun Range = 600m
AAM Missile Range = 75,000m +

Plus the speed difference.

You can do a lot more now with a lot less.

TF Helmand = 10,000
Cyprus Garrison circ 1950's = 58,000

Reply 54

InArduisFouette

21

typhoon 100 in service of 146 or 160 ( depending on source) ordered

tornado IDS (gr 4) 120 ish ...

hardly paltry given the punch that 4 and 4.5 g aircraft pack especially carrying weapon systems like Storm Shadow

The UK also have armed UAVs as well...

also don't forget that the AAC now has 66 Apache ,

plus the 33 AH9 lynx ( to remain in service) and 50ish AH7s to be replaced by 34 Wildcat and the FAA's 30 + lynx to be replaced for 28 Wlidcat ...

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 55