Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


MPs warn of security risk if nuclear submarines are delayed

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 19 March 2009
By RHIANNON EDWARD
BRITAIN'S ability to maintain its Trident nuclear deterrent is "open to doubt", MPs warned today amid fears that the new, replacement class of missile-carrying submarines will not be completed on time.
The Commons Public Accounts Committee said that the first of the new submarines must be in service by 2024 if the Royal Navy is to maintain its ability to keep one vessel at sea at all times.

However, the Ministry of Defence (MoD) was trying to cr
am the design and construction of the submarines – a process that normally takes 18 years – into just 17, despite its long history of delays to major equipment projects.

At the same time, the MoD had to take crucial decisions about the design of the missile compartment before the Americans had finalised a life-extension programme for the submarines' US-built D5 Trident missiles.

Despite assurances given by George Bush, the former US president, to then prime minister Tony Blair that "close co-ordination" between the two countries would be maintained, the committee warned there was a "significant risk" that the updated missiles could be "incompatible" with the new submarines.

"Any form of dislocation or delay in this collaboration process would have serious ramifications for the department's ability to support a nuclear deterrent over the long-run," the committee said.

The 2024 completion date for first of the new submarines is crucial as by that time two of the existing four Vanguard class vessels will have been taken out of service.

The navy needs at least three nuclear missile submarines if it is to maintain its cycle of continuous-at-sea patrols which are the basis of the UK deterrent.

In the meantime, the MoD has just six months to decide on a nuclear reactor for the vessels.

The choice lies between selecting an existing model – which will need updating – or a new design which risks delay.





Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 18 March 2009 10:00 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Nuclear defence
 
1

jerrymanders,

19/03/2009 00:49:37
Have a joint project with the French......
2

redcliffe62,

19/03/2009 01:26:30
or a third choice, to scrap them and spend the money on health and education instead of playing at soldiers in a game that neither scotland nor the u.k as a whole can now afford.
joining with the french at least means we will think twice before starting another war, as they will hopefully continue to see reason before jumping in boots and all, so good point jerrym.
3

Brian Hill,

19/03/2009 02:21:55
Delaying Trident is a security risk? Why, are their countries out their ready to attack us the minute Trident is decommissioned?

If it's such a problem move the damn things down to the Thames where the Brit Nats can keep an eye on them and become a prime target...I mean feel better protected....

Failing that look at Sweden, Denmark, Holland, Switzerland, Monaco, Lichtenstein neither of which have Trident and count how many times they have been attacked over the last 50 years.

Let's do what the Germans and Japanese did after WW2, they spent all their money on infra structure and industry to come from nothing to two of the strongest economies in the world.
4

For Scotlands Future,

Vote for the SNP 19/03/2009 03:03:01
"....if the Royal Navy is to maintain its ability to keep one vessel at sea at all times."

Are they just talking about submarines, or the whole Navy??

The risks are that the people who built the current things are no longer there, and the expertise to maintain the existing weapons is fast disappearing.

Just get rid of them.

They are operated on a principle of the threat of retaliation. That causes a wee bit of a problem when the terrorists in the world operate on a principle martyrdom.

The US & UK Nuclear Subs obviously didn't deter 9/11 or the London and Glasgow attacks. And they don't seem to be acting as much of a deterrent in Iraq or Afghanistan, or preventing Iran from going nuclear.

Just who are these weapons protecting us from.

Another article in this edition suggests that these have CAUSED the development of nuclear weapons in other countries.
5

For Scotlands Future,

Vote for the SNP 19/03/2009 03:15:24
The argument for Son of Trident is bankrupt when it is justified on the grounds that it will produce or maintain jobs.

I think some of the billions being wasted on these things could be used to produce and maintain more useful jobs.

Just think what could be developed if these billions were invested in in Renewable Energy schemes like the Pentland Firth Turbines.

With a tiny fraction of that money we could put Maggie Brown into Space (or is he able to use his superpowers and get there by himself?).
6

Incandescent,

19/03/2009 03:25:30
4 "Are they just talking about submarines, or the whole Navy??

The risks are that the people who built the current things are no longer there, and the expertise to maintain the existing weapons is fast disappearing."

Yes they're talking specifically about submarines and you expose your utter lack of knowledge on the subject with your ridiculous second sentence/paragraph.
7

Incandescent,

19/03/2009 03:28:01
4 "Just who are these weapons protecting us from."

Evidently, you conveniently missed Russia's president Medvedev's recent (unilateral) declaration to "upgrade their strategic nuclear arsenal".

The big bad bear hasn't gone away: he was just in economic hibernation.
8

Geoff,

sa 19/03/2009 05:26:27
1 jerrymanders-a joint project with the French would make sense in theory but experience with for eg the supposed co-operation on the carrier project points to the probability that all this would do would delay the project further! Also the frogs guard their independent "Force de Frappe" very jealously!
9

Geoff,

sa 19/03/2009 05:35:50
3 Brian hill and others- yesSweden,holland,denmark etc countries that do not provide for their own defence will continue to rely on the UK and others to protect them. Nuclear weapons, obscenities that they are, are not going to dissapear- N.Korea,China,Pakistan,Russia.Iran(soon) etc will never give them up, so it is left to countries such as the USA and UK to hold the line or would any of you advocate unilateral disarmament on the part of the West. An attack is unlikely yes, and they are horrendously expensive, but if we are attacked and defenceless, or more to the point even THREATENED with attack, then without MAD we are totally ******!

Simple inescapable facts.
10

TWC,

19/03/2009 08:23:01
when's the election? everything is falling apart.
The new high speed trains will probably no fit the rails.
11

yockel,

19/03/2009 09:26:57
#2 Redcliffe62, not against scrapping Trident but just how educated and healthy does a population need to be. If we got our minds off pandering to our vanity and did some work instead of whinging to be educated and saved we might be able to afford a submarine or two even if we didn't really need one.
Interestingly recent studies of the American deterrent has suggested it is a heap of rusting scrap run by lazy, disinterested, inefficient lardtubs, so done factor relying on them for protection any time soon.
12

Miss H,

19/03/2009 09:43:54
So the nukes won't fit in the subs?

You could not make this up.

Oh well I am sure they still have time to pop down to Ikea and get some of those stackable plastic boxes, or maybe the wicker ones with the wee bows on front.

Oh where is that ridiculous ‘Debator’ character that was on here yesterday calling for the Brits to invade Antartica with their super new nukes?

Oops.
13

Mr. Lachie Todd,

Edinburgh 19/03/2009 10:25:03
A committee of MP's claims that unless the Government bring forward the next generation of Royal Navy nuclear-armed submarines, the new US made missiles will not be compatible?

The Yanks intend to change the missile design and have no intention of waiting for the cash-strapped UK to follow suit? The US is currently building 5 new nuclear-armed submarines and has plans for another 11!

Unlike the US, the world's only true superpower, the UK cannot immediately afford the tens of billions of pounds to construct new submarines which are being renewed over a 20 year period?

Previously, France had 6 nuclear submarines but for the same unaffordable reasons as the UK, it had to reduce the number to four. However, unlike the UK, France has never relied on the US for its nuclear missiles, and is upgrading its submarines with a new French design.

France has the same budgetry problems as the UK, and is finding it increasingly difficult to maintain its nuclear deterrent.




14

The Former Mr. Angry,

Perth 19/03/2009 10:38:35
We can "trust" Labour to deal with our nuclear deterrent with same enthusiasn as they have backed our conventional forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, which is to say not much.

Flinging away the nuclear deterrent while Russia re-arms and Iran is doing goodness knows what and with North Korea's Dear Leader threatening mayhem is just utterly naive. No doubt Brown can be expected to appear from some Global Bargain clutching a piece of paper and declaring "peace in our time". Bankrupt in fiscal, moral and now defence terms.
15

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 19/03/2009 11:18:11
We really can't afford to be part of the nuclear club anymore. Brown has emptied the piggy bank and borrowed far to much.
16

Mr. Lachie Todd,

Edinburgh 19/03/2009 14:09:06
According to the US Department of Defense website the US Navy has a total of 78 nuclear submarines.

Fifty four are nuclear attack subs
17

Jimmy Le Pie,

19/03/2009 15:19:37
For a country about to celebrate 'British Bankruptcy Day', facing the worst depression in living memory, can these imbeciles not be sectioned under the Mental Health Act?

Going cap in hand to the IMF for money to build nuclear submarines takes the biscuit.

Utter buffoons!!
18

TWC,

Ex Labour 19/03/2009 17:18:23
Glad they are delayed and as usual they will be years late an over cost, so there will still be tiome to cancel them, after the GE.
A waste of money and something Scotland can and will do without.
19

Mcsnagpile,

19/03/2009 18:19:50
Aye there is a security risk. If these Bargies start again we will nuke them. In fact bring home the boys and send out the nukes. The Talibams canny hide if they have no caves. There is no point in barking if ye are paying through the nose in taxes for a dog.
We could go to war with Russia and be the first European country country to visit the moon.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.