SDSR 2020

Rasczak

Outstanding Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2002
Messages
27,709
Reaction score
10,515
Points
6,144
Location
Warwick
The next Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) should be kicked off in the near future. Rumours abound it will be led by Dominic Cummings.
 
No bad thing I would suggest.
 
No bad thing I would suggest.
Why is that? Cummings is without a doubt an excellent political campaign manager. But an SDSR is about national security rather than empty soundbites aggressively and repeatedly put. His (rumoured) appointment suggests the SDSR - or at least a significant part of it - is going to a political event rather than one in the best interests of the UK. Even the 2010 SDSR, for all its flaws, largely avoided that (Nimrod's aside!).
 
Why is that? Cummings is without a doubt an excellent political campaign manager. But an SDSR is about national security rather than empty soundbites aggressively and repeatedly put. His (rumoured) appointment suggests the SDSR - or at least a significant part of it - is going to a political event rather than one in the best interests of the UK. Even the 2010 SDSR, for all its flaws, largely avoided that (Nimrod's aside!).

maybe.

firstly, all these things are political.

But I am of a mind that he is unlike most around Westminster a very intelligent chap who understands people. He therefore has the potential to produce something that will satisfy everyone.

time will tell. I have no strong feelings around this either way.
 
The system needs shaking up because much of the Defence budget is wasted. £6bn to build 2 aircraft carriers that we dont have enough small ships to protect is a key example - just to give jobs to ship workers in Scotland.

I'd like some investigation into an alternative to Trident which is far to costly for the threat we face.
 
The system needs shaking up because much of the Defence budget is wasted. £6bn to build 2 aircraft carriers that we dont have enough small ships to protect is a key example -
Carriers are usually used in action as part of a coalition fleet. There would probably be other Nato ships involved.
just to give jobs to ship workers in Scotland.
Partly correct. Building was a modular construction and shared over the UK. Rosyth did the main assembly.


1576514533225.png


I'd like some investigation into an alternative to Trident which is far to costly for the threat we face.
It tends to get investigated a lot and it always comes out that Trident is the best for us. Hence why we have it.

First off you could use cruise missiles, but I believe cruise missiles with nuclear tipped warheads are currently banned anyway.

Even if they aren't, it causes other issues. Let's suppose "red forces" are kicking off. You send cruise missiles with conventional warheads at the red forces. The red forces know you have cruise missiles with a nuclear warhead, think you may have just gone nuclear and fire back with their nuclear weapons anyway.

It's for this reason, but coming from the other direction, we never had Trident with conventional warheads. It would work great but if the red forces see a Trident launched, even with conventional warheads they might think it was us going nuclear when it wasn't and then they go nuclear anyway.

So one thing about Trident and nuclear missiles is you can't accidentally mistake it for anything else. Once launched you've definitely gone nuclear, and before launch you definitely haven't.

Other issues are that cruise missiles and what carry them can be stopped. They are slower and have a limited range and can only be fired from certain things that need to get in close enough.

You can overcome that by having a huge amount of nuclear warheads on a huge amount of platforms. Then you will guarantee some will get through and would be a deterrent . But that then shoves the cost right up and you were trying to save money. It also means a lot of stuff to keep an eye on and issues with countries not letting you near them in case your ships etc have nukes. For instance we have Typhoons based in Eastern Europe. If we wanted to be a deterrent we could have nuclear warheads there too but then the host countries might not be happy.


What are the alternatives?
Trident's ballistic missiles have a long range, of up to 7,500 miles. One alternative that has been suggested is using cruise missiles based on different submarines. But cruise missiles have a far shorter range, of over 1,000 miles, and are slower and vulnerable to being shot down. The government review concluded this would actually cost more than renewing Trident in its current form, since the UK might have to bear all the research and development costs of its own programme.

Others have suggested using a land-based delivery system, to avoid the cost of building new submarines. That has been rejected in the past as too vulnerable to attack and impractical although the 2013 options review said this could potentially be mitigated by having fewer "silo" sites that were more strategically located.

Some say it would be cheaper to launch missiles from a long-range aircraft. However, the shorter range would again be an issue - and the aircraft could be brought down. The review said "much more work" would be needed on such an idea.


The history:

We were leading the development to nuclear weapons in the 1940s. We then gave the information we'd learned to the US which had the money and was able to develop that knowledge further to successfully detonate a bucket of sunshine. It's not like their country was being bombed or attacked at the time.

Having successfully detonated a bomb they then used variants of it and ended WWII.

Then they decided to keep us out of the knowledge and anyone else. Some scientists worried about the monopoly the US had, shared secrets with the USSR and the USSR was also busy coming up with their own. Probably with good reason, some hawks in the US wanted to take the opportunity to nuke the USSR while they could.

We then decided we would develop our own.

Ernie Bevin, foreign secretary in Clement Attlee's post-war government, 1946.

“I don't want any other foreign secretary of this country to be talked to or at by a secretary of state in the United States as I have just had in my discussions with Mr Byrnes. We've got to have this thing [a nuclear bomb] over here whatever it costs. We've got to have the bloody Union Jack on top of it."

We then created our own bomb, the US then said, "fine let's share." They were then developing Polaris and offered us the chance to have it as a joint venture. Which meant we could go from dropping a free falling nuclear bomb to a system hidden under the oceans, had a huge range, and comes in on the final phase at Mach 12. Pretty unstoppable. We've shared development since.



We could have a 100% completely independent system but Trident is good enough. The subs, crew, and warhead are all independent and ours. The missiles are in a central pool in the US for servicing. Development and knowledge is a joint venture with the US and it's unlikely we will ever fight each other.

So it's a top level system at a reduced cost versus a different system which may not be allowed, may not be effective, may not be a deterrent, may cost more anyway.
 
Last edited:
The system needs shaking up because much of the Defence budget is wasted. £6bn to build 2 aircraft carriers that we dont have enough small ships to protect is a key example - just to give jobs to ship workers in Scotland.
Your attempt to have a dig at Scotland falls flat on its face - whether we built carriers or small ships, they would have been built in Scotland. But we do need more Frigates for sure.

I'd like some investigation into an alternative to Trident which is far to costly for the threat we face.
We have been there and done that at the behest of the Lib Dems in the coalition years. Trident is not going anyway.
 
Your attempt to have a dig at Scotland falls flat on its face - whether we built carriers or small ships, they would have been built in Scotland. But we do need more Frigates for sure.

Not a dig - reality. The idea that we should be building Carriers without the escort ships simply to keep jobs going is a barmy use of Defence spending.
 
Last edited:
Carriers are usually used in action as part of a coalition fleet. There would probably be other Nato ships involved.

There would have to be - but that makes it hardly an independent weapons system.

Even if they aren't, it causes other issues. Let's suppose "red forces" are kicking off. You send cruise missiles with conventional warheads at the red forces. The red forces know you have cruise missiles with a nuclear warhead, think you may have just gone nuclear and fire back with their nuclear weapons anyway.

It's for this reason, but coming from the other direction, we never had Trident with conventional warheads. It would work great but if the red forces see a Trident launched, even with conventional warheads they might think it was us going nuclear when it wasn't and then they go nuclear anyway.

I'm not sure that argument holds much water as we had multiple delivery systems for nuclear and conventional munitions throughout the cold war and nobody mistook one for the other.

You have to look at the level of threat and the fact is that nowdays we simply dont need a nuclear delivery system of the security of response of Trident, a cheaper alternative would do for what we need now - we are not still on Bikini Amber.
 
The next Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) should be kicked off in the near future. Rumours abound it will be led by Dominic Cummings.

Does Cummings have a lot of experience with military/defence, which would help him review it?
 
There would have to be - but that makes it hardly an independent weapons system.
Even the US can be in fleets with other nations. When would we be independent? We was for the Falklands but I can't see that ever happening again.
I'm not sure that argument holds much water as we had multiple delivery systems for nuclear and conventional munitions throughout the cold war and nobody mistook one for the other.
See the review for a detailed look at all the alternative options.


Trident with conventional warheads. Looked at, never done.


You have to look at the level of threat and the fact is that nowdays we simply dont need a nuclear delivery system of the security of response of Trident, a cheaper alternative would do for what we need now - we are not still on Bikini Amber.
What exactly?
 
Do you need that to lead a review?

I’ve always been a believer in the idea that to lead a review, you should have knowledge of what you’re reviewing.
 
I’ve always been a believer in the idea that to lead a review, you should have knowledge of what you’re reviewing.
I’m a firm believer that if you have dogs there is no need to bark yourself.

Translated in English that means that experts are really good at their area of knowledge. But not necessarily in getting a review concluded on time, to budget, and with the right focus.

A leader of such reviews can be handicapped by their knowledge and confirmation bias if they were to lead it themselves.
 
I’m a firm believer that if you have dogs there is no need to bark yourself.

Translated in English that means that experts are really good at their area of knowledge. But not necessarily in getting a review concluded on time, to budget, and with the right focus.

A leader of such reviews can be handicapped by their knowledge and confirmation bias if they were to lead it themselves.

Also a fair opinion. Having spent time in IT reviews conducted by people from both ends of that spectrum, I'd say that maybe someone in the middle is a better option. As per my post, has Cummings got a military/security background to use as part of a reviewing role? (that's a genuine question as I don't know).
 
Also a fair opinion. Having spent time in IT reviews conducted by people from both ends of that spectrum, I'd say that maybe someone in the middle is a better option. As per my post, has Cummings got a military/security background to use as part of a reviewing role? (that's a genuine question as I don't know).
No idea either.

I think what also shouldn’t be forgotten is that this is a review at the top level. In order to feed into the review many lower level reviews will be held. The lower down the ranks you get the closer the “leader” of such review should be to the topic.
 
Cummings is there because his advice, on the whole, turns out to be correct. Cummings is credited with a large share of the credit for the successful strategy of both the Brexit referendum and the recent GE win.

Which is why Boris listens to him. The same as when Boris was London Mayor, he surrounded himself with experts. Boris makes for being a good ringmaster.

If you scroll down you can see Dominic's thinking.


I'm assuming it's the decision making process he will want to improve, not the decision making on the actual programmes.
 
Even the US can be in fleets with other nations. When would we be independent? We was for the Falklands but I can't see that ever happening again.

But I dont see the point of a carrier fleet if you can only deploy it if you have support from other nations. As you pointed out, if the Falklands flare up again we would have to leave both of them at home.



What exactly?

Personally I would go for air launched cruise missiles - by far the cheapest option and still a reasonable deterrent.
 
But I dont see the point of a carrier fleet if you can only deploy it if you have support from other nations.
No different to the carriers of other nations. This is assuming the enemy country even has some kind of reasonably effective navy to be an issue and the ships around today are better than those of decades ago.
As you pointed out, if the Falklands flare up again we would have to leave both of them at home.
Argentina's forces are currently in such a bad state it's a national disgrace.
Personally I would go for air launched cruise missiles - by far the cheapest option and still a reasonable deterrent.
Covered in the report above. Numerous disadvantages, airbases vulnerable to a surprise attack, no strategic bombers so limited on range, I'm assuming the nukes would be stored in the UK, the missiles and aircraft can be intercepted en route, and the only nuclear cruise missile I am aware of and still used is France's ASMPA. The UK would need to research and develop them. Note France has them as well as Submarine Launched Missiles.

Also note. The navy has been doing this for a long time and has a lot of experience and operating, training, hiding, testing etc. The RAF hasn't, so add in costs there as well.
 
No different to the carriers of other nations. This is assuming the enemy country even has some kind of reasonably effective navy to be an issue and the ships around today are better than those of decades ago.

All it takes is for one aircraft with one anti-ship missile and whoosh £3Bn ship slides below the waves - they dont need a navy.


Covered in the report above. Numerous disadvantages, airbases vulnerable to a surprise attack, no strategic bombers so limited on range, I'm assuming the nukes would be stored in the UK, the missiles and aircraft can be intercepted en route, and the only nuclear cruise missile I am aware of and still used is France's ASMPA. The UK would need to research and develop them. Note France has them as well as Submarine Launched Missiles.

No your missing the point - I'm not saying that any air launched system would be an equivalent for Trident, but the fact is that we dont have the nuclear threat level we had during the cold war so dont need cold war levels of deterrence.

Todays stealth technology make it very likely that at least one aircraft would reach its target so you would still have a level of (reduced) deterrence - at a much cheaper price.

Also note. The navy has been doing this for a long time and has a lot of experience and operating, training, hiding, testing etc. The RAF hasn't, so add in costs there as well.

The Navy has experience in operating submarines - whether you fire a nuke or missile with conventional warhead the actual operation is no different. Same for aircraft.
 
The Navy has experience in operating submarines - whether you fire a nuke or missile with conventional warhead the actual operation is no different. Same for aircraft.
Dropping a nuclear bomb from an aircraft is very different from dropping a conventional bomb - at least if you (as the pilot) have any wish to survive.

As for air launches equivalents to Trident, are there any that can achieve Mach 23 and strike target at 75 degrees angle or greater?
 
Dropping a nuclear bomb from an aircraft is very different from dropping a conventional bomb - at least if you (as the pilot) have any wish to survive.

As for air launches equivalents to Trident, are there any that can achieve Mach 23 and strike target at 75 degrees angle or greater?

I repeat - we are not looking for an equivalent of Trident.

As for surviving a nuclear bomb drop, in the 40's and 50's many nuclear bombs were dropped from aircraft and in all cases the crew survived so I quite see what has changed in the intervening years.
 
As for surviving a nuclear bomb drop, in the 40's and 50's many nuclear bombs were dropped from aircraft and in all cases the crew survived so I quite see what has changed in the intervening years.
Anti-air missiles.
Faster jets
Bigger bombs
 
All it takes is for one aircraft with one anti-ship missile and whoosh £3Bn ship slides below the waves - they dont need a navy.
And all it takes is one missile and that aircraft is gone. Lessons were learned after the Falklands. We didn't have AEW, CIWS, and the only decent anti aircraft missile turned out to be Sea Wolf. Rapier and Sea Dart both had "issues." Since then the issues were addressed and we haven't had much of a significant threat for the last four decades.

Also note the job of destroyers and frigates is ultimately to be the bullet catchers or rather "missile catchers." If an aircraft or missile ever gets near your carrier, something has gone very wrong.
No your missing the point - I'm not saying that any air launched system would be an equivalent for Trident, but the fact is that we dont have the nuclear threat level we had during the cold war so dont need cold war levels of deterrence.
A minimum level of warheads are carried on Trident to reflect the cold war is over.
Todays stealth technology make it very likely that at least one aircraft would reach its target so you would still have a level of (reduced) deterrence - at a much cheaper price.
In a similar manner ships are also in a stealthy design and have a reduced RCS also making them harder to hit.
The Navy has experience in operating submarines - whether you fire a nuke or missile with conventional warhead the actual operation is no different. Same for aircraft.
The warheads, systems, security, use and decision to use are all very different.

Also consider this.

We are leaving the EU. Consider politics. We would be saying to the US we want to end our partnership, funding, expertise on one of the most important projects we both share, to come up with something new, entirely from scratch and who we might even ask for help with from France as they are the most recent country to do it.

Snub the US and ask for help from France? Now?
 

The latest video from AVForums

TV Buying Guide - Which TV Is Best For You?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom