British SSBNs, Do we need all 4?

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: 1 2 3 NEXT

gf0012-aust RE:British SSBNs, Do we need all 4? 12/22/2004 11:46:24 PM

If you don't want them, we'll be happy to have them. ;) We can convert the suckers into SSGN's and USCV/UUV/USV launchers.

Quote Reply

french stratege RE:British SSBNs, Do we need all 4? 12/23/2004 11:00:09 AM

Yes: if one is in major overhaul (like midlife update), you will have 3 boat available. If one is also in normal overhaul: two remains available for deploiement.And you can not be sure that one of your SSBN will not be sunk. Moreover you can not have a flexible response with one SSBN: if one fired its missiles it is likely to be sunk soon after. With two boat you can use one for counterforce or/and industrial potential destruction ,and keep one available to avoid counterpopulation reprisal. Or even three in crisis. I would add that a boat will use faster its life potential if you have to use only three boats. Also to spare one boat is not sparing a lot of money compare to a carrier.A carrier have a maybe 2000 crews while a SSBM have 2 crew of 110 men.Not the same salary cost!The major part of SSBN cost breakdown is in building, not use! "48-64 warheads. More than enough to represent a credible threat to even the largest of nations": not really against China for example: you would destroy only few large cities.No warheads to hit harbours or industry or airfields! In fact you will have the risk that you can wound a country only superficially and that this country knowing they could do you massive dammage on your population with nukes, will not believe in your deterrent. Germany have received the equivalent of 400 Hiroshima bombs in WW2!

Quote Reply

Yimmy RE:British SSBNs, Do we need all 4? 12/23/2004 11:16:34 AM

We need at least 4. If we have such a small number of boats, a likely enemy could attempt to destroy them in port and the likes. So, if we only had 3 boats and one was destroyed, we would only have two boats, which is not enough to keep one at sea all the tme. In my opinion we should bring back the V wings and all.

Quote Reply

RM-Nod RE:British SSBNs, Do we need all 4? 12/23/2004 12:01:12 PM

"Moreover you can not have a flexible response with one SSBN: if one fired its missiles it is likely to be sunk soon after." How so? I don't know of any force on this planet that has the resources to detect a launch thousands of miles from it's coast and then mount a responce before the sub moves away. I don't agree with the enemy targeting our boats in port theory, what's to stop anyone doing that now? Obviously we wouldn't have all the subs in port at the same time. By managing the SSBNs as we do the carriers we could have one on patrol and one in reserve at all times, there by having 2 boats available. "Also to spare one boat is not sparing a lot of money compare to a carrier.A carrier have a maybe 2000 crews while a SSBM have 2 crew of 110 men.Not the same salary cost!The major part of SSBN cost breakdown is in building, not use!" I agree, but it would spare some money and would offer major saving when it comes to replacing them; having only to order 3 boats instead of 4. "not really against China for example: you would destroy only few large cities.No warheads to hit harbours or industry or airfields! In fact you will have the risk that you can wound a country only superficially and that this country knowing they could do you massive dammage on your population with nukes, will not believe in your deterrent." What, so having an extra 64 warheads that aren't usually on patrol anyway will be a credible threat as opposed to having 64 fewer? I disagree. And if it is that bad then each boat can carry an extra 64 warheads while keeping within the START limits. In my opinion 64 warheads is enough to destory the major infrastructor of any nation and more importantly it is enough to trigger a major nuclear war. The threat only has to be enough to stop any leader wanting to launch an attack against you. For that you need to have a nuclear capability of destroying any forces that are moving against you; the UK easily has that with 3 SSBNs, further more you must be able to harm a country to the point it is not worth starting a war with you. 64 warheads can do that. It may not completley destroy a country (only a few countries though) but it could turn any country into it's own hell hole; destroy it's economy, probably destroy any system of power etc etc

Quote Reply

Yimmy RE:British SSBNs, Do we need all 4? 12/23/2004 12:26:59 PM

"I don't agree with the enemy targeting our boats in port theory, what's to stop anyone doing that now? Obviously we wouldn't have all the subs in port at the same time." That is hardly the point; they could be attacked before the start of hostilities in such a manner where it was unclear who done it. You can hardly comission a couple new boats in a matter of months to fill the gap.

Quote Reply

french stratege RE:British SSBNs, Do we need all 4? 12/23/2004 1:05:44 PM

For the French the R&D cost nearly as much than the first four of the Triomphant class which is 2 billion $/per boat. You have much more opportunity of saving R&D cost (and much more than a single SSBN price) by fielding a derivative of your SSN class (like Astute) than to build a special class. 64 warheads of 120 kt is equivalent of 256 Hiroshima warheads.As I said Germany survived with much more dammages.For China it is putting them only 20 years backward and let them to dispose 90% of their power. To dammage big countries need at minimum 300 nukes according to US. UK deterrent allow them to avoid their population threaten by nukes but not war even with nukes. To have a credible deterrent means to inflict much bigger dammage of great countries and have a little flexibility for two strikes. Even with 2 subs, UK could have the risk to get boat sunk even by US (it would become a potential way for US to get a control on UK deterrent - a sort of double key control). If you want more saving for next generation, make 4 smaller boat on a SSN basis like US did in the 60ies. "How so? I don't know of any force on this planet that has the resources to detect a launch thousands of miles from it's coast and then mount a responce before the sub moves away. " In cold war I know two: US and Russia.It was the reason for nuke SUBROC. An ICBM can destroy your subs also after a first salvo (which take 8 minutes for all 16 missiles).Ballistic missile launch detection satellites (DSP) pinpoint the subs and a ICBM/IRBM strike the sea maybe less than 20 minutes after (the boat have moved few miles only and a megatonic(s) bomb will crush it 10 miles away) or a SUBROC or ship equivalents in minutes.Your sub will fire one time only. Nations with this capacity today: US, Russia In few years: France (if satellites are developped as planed) and China.

Quote Reply

RM-Nod RE:British SSBNs, Do we need all 4? 12/23/2004 1:37:46 PM

"That is hardly the point; they could be attacked before the start of hostilities in such a manner where it was unclear who done it." But my point still stands. What is to stop an enemy destroying our boats in port now? Obviously they can't since they aren't all in port at the same time but the same would be true of 3 boats. Strat, sorry, should hace said moved away AND fired it's missiles. That's the point, it doesn't matter if the sub get's destroyed as long as it has fired it's missiles, which it has ample time to do. A second boat would make little to no difference. I don't think that there is any country that would risk being hit by 64 120kt warheads, most likley 128 (depending on range). You may need 300 nukes to literally destroy a country but you don't have to be able to destroy a country, you just have to be able to destroy the governments control thereby providing a reason for the country's leaders not to push the button. If you destroy the control then the country will most likley destroy itself.

Quote Reply

french stratege RE:British SSBNs, Do we need all 4? 12/23/2004 2:30:51 PM

-it means you can't launch a single salvo so no flexibility by moving target scale: military then industry then civilians in case of retaliation. -if a ennemy SSN is in the vicinity you are sunk even before launching all warheads if it has SUBROC equivalent. A single sub is not a robust deterrent.

Quote Reply

Yimmy RE:British SSBNs, Do we need all 4? 12/23/2004 2:37:58 PM

"But my point still stands. What is to stop an enemy destroying our boats in port now? Obviously they can't since they aren't all in port at the same time but the same would be true of 3 boats." Of course, but you agree that at least one boat is laying vulnerable in port at any one time? Now, with four boats, one could be lost in such a manner, and we still have enough boats to ensure one is at sea at any one time. If we only had three boats, and one were to be destroyed (at port, or by any other means), then we would be left with two boats. And two boats are not enough to garuntee that one will be at sea at any one time. You see my point? I have always been more a fan of V bombers than subs anyway, but that is probably through watching Dr Strange Love too much.

Quote Reply

gixxxerking RE:British SSBNs, Do we need all 4? 12/23/2004 2:58:36 PM

French Strateg is right. 4 boats is minimum figure. There is a general misunderstanding of the effects of nuclear warheads. Yes, even 1 will cause death and destruction on a scale you wouldnt believe. So if your goal is to just be able to nuke someone the just build 1 boat. Or even cheaper, just make a few silos and scrap the boats. That would be a nuclear strike capability, but not a nuclear deterent. I know 64 warhead sounds like a lot but its really not against a big country. They would survive it in the short term and retain the ability to make war. Now if you ally yourself with other nuclear powers so that the totality of your nukes is at the 300+ mark. then you could do that. But you would also be placing your fate in the hands of others. The actual number of nukes required to be a truly credible nucler war fighting force is 1000+ with the actual number a highly classified secret. But U.S./Russia arent just keeping several thousand for bragging rights. Short of Jesus Christ return to earth and ruling the world, you will never see superpower nuke forces go below 1500 warheads. Keep the 4 boats if you know whats good for you.

Quote Reply

RM-Nod RE:British SSBNs, Do we need all 4? 12/23/2004 3:22:58 PM

Yimmy, as far as I know we only keep one boat on patrol anyway, meaning the other 3 are in the UK which also means that if Britain is struck first then the enemy can destroy these 3. So whether we have 3 boats with 2 in port of 4 boats with 3 in port makes no difference. We will never have all of our SSBNs in port at any one time so in the event there base is hit we will always have at least one. Look at it this way, Britain will only use it's nuclear weapons in a few scenarios. A) If Britain is under major threat of attack in which case we could very quickly get a second boat out to sea in addition to the one already on patrol. B) Britain is hit first, in which case we have a single boat with which to retaliate but considering we only have a single SSBN operating at any one time any then this will be no different to now. C) Britain goes nuts and wants to launch first, in which case we would have ample time to get all 3 boats out to sea. In any case having a fourth SSBN makes little to no difference. In terms of deterent, I still believe that it's the risk to the government's control over the target country that is the incentive for them not to attack you. 64-128 120kt warheads is enough to do enough damage for that in my opinion. Not to mention that any nuclear attack by anyone on anyone else has a major chance of starting world war 3. Nukes are political weapons and should be considered as such in my opinion.

Quote Reply

Yimmy RE:British SSBNs, Do we need all 4? 12/23/2004 3:32:43 PM

"B) Britain is hit first, in which case we have a single boat with which to retaliate but considering we only have a single SSBN operating at any one time any then this will be no different to now." But you are still mising my point. If we only had three boats, and one were to be destroyed by an unknown, be the sub simply dissapear one day in the middile of the Atlantic or an IED blows it up, we would only have two boats. Two boats is not enough to ensure we have one at sea. Then 2 years later at a time when we do not have one of our two boats at sea we could be attacked with no deterrant of retaliation.

Quote Reply

RM-Nod RE:British SSBNs, Do we need all 4? 12/23/2004 6:17:28 PM

We can keep one at sea with 2 boats for long enough to buy a replacement, depending on availability rates. However it is very unlikley that we would suffer a catastrophic loss of an SSBN and with the budget being as tight as it is I would rather see the money spent on something that is needed and used. Obviously I'd love 4 SSBNs, in fact I'd love a lot more but they are expensive and the RN is having to cut commitments and something has to give.

Quote Reply

Iano RE:British SSBNs, Do we need all 4? 12/27/2004 1:58:26 PM

Yimmy and RM, I see both your points. But I still believe that we should keep the 4 SSBNs. Yes having 3 boats with 1 out would be no different in a nuclear war to having 4 boats with 1 out. But consider that before a nuclear war there is likely to be a period of 2-7 days at least of mounting tensions. Nobody just wakes up one morning with the idea to start a nuclear war - it would happen for a reason. And when we saw that evidence developing - tactical nuclear weapons usage, NBC/WMD usage, suicide bombings in the mainland, prophesies of mass martyrdom, WHATEVER it may be - I'm sure we could very quickly put another 1 or 2 SSBNs out to sea. And having 3 out there in say 4 days, is way better than having 1. And that extra survivability and extra warheads WILL make a difference. In fact why on earth dont we fill all the tubes with Tridents and fill all the Tridents with warheads now, 100% loadout? RM I know what you're saying but we're in an increasingly uncertain world and a little robustness couldn't hurt us. Better to have an extra SSBN and never need it than to need an extra SSBN and never have it. And as we've gone through the massive cost of building the Vanguard class and running costs are much less considerable than initial costs, we might as well use what we have already paid for, eh?

Quote Reply

kjetski RE:British SSBNs, Do we need all 4? 12/29/2004 5:14:50 PM

What, so having an extra 64 warheads that aren't usually on patrol anyway will be a credible threat as opposed to having 64 fewer? I disagree. And if it is that bad then each boat can carry an extra 64 warheads while keeping within the START limits. In my opinion 64 warheads is enough to destory the major infrastructor of any nation and more importantly it is enough to trigger a major nuclear war. The threat only has to be enough to stop any leader wanting to launch an attack against you. For that you need to have a nuclear capability of destroying any forces that are moving against you; the UK easily has that with 3 SSBNs, further more you must be able to harm a country to the point it is not worth starting a war with you. 64 warheads can do that. It may not completley destroy a country (only a few countries though) but it could turn any country into it's own hell hole; destroy it's economy, probably destroy any system of power etc et $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Normally I agree with your posts. Not this time. Only about half of those 64 warheads will actually hit what they are aimed at. Mirvs were created to increase P/K (I think that is how you use the abbreviation for probability of kill). So now you have around 20 targets that will actually be hit. And 20 may not be enough to deter the chinks. No, the UK needs at least 5 boats filled up with warheads. And no I will not help you pay for them either Mr. Blair.

Quote Reply

Pages: 1 2 3 NEXT

	News As History - November 23, 2008
	Home News How to Make War Wars Around the World Austin Bay's On Point Dirty Little Secrets Features Al Nofi's CIC Prediction Market Wargames Measure of Respect On War and Warfare Videos Photos Jokes Community Military Discussion Boards Military Jokes Military Photos Military Book Reviews Military Movie Reviews Military Links Wargame Store StrategyPage Subscribe Login Feedback About Us Search Account Manager Advertise With Us