Yes or No, £3bn boost for Faslane nuclear submarine base

Plans for the jobs bonanza are now fully developed, say sources, despite the threat posed to the ­Royal Navy’s future on Gare Loch.

 

The revelation has led to ­renewed speculation that if there is a Yes vote next month, the Ministry of Defence expects to strike a deal to keep the UK’s nuclear deterrent in Scotland.

 

In the event of a No vote, Faslane will become Britain’s only ­specialist submarine base with the ­capacity for 16 vessels by 2022.

 

It will house seven new nuclear-powered Astute Class attack subs, currently being built at a cost of £1bn each, as well as the four Trident-carrying Vanguard Class vessels.

 

Two attack boats, HMS Astute and HMS Ambush, are already based at Faslane after being ­handed to the Royal Navy by ­defence contractor BAE Systems.Scotland will also become the sole maintenance home for the submarine fleet, following the ­closure of Portsmouth dockyard last year and after the Devonport base near Plymouth is scaled down by 2017.

 

While the MoD estimates that around 1,500 military and civilian jobs will be added at Faslane, ­thousands more jobs will be ­created as construction begins.

 

A source said: “The blueprints have been drawn up and the transition plans for the new Faslane are now under way. The original facility was designed to hold seven ­submarines, but under the new plans, a ­total of 16 will be hosted at any given time. The design plans are currently before the MoD and will effectively double the size of the facility and bring thousands of new jobs to the area. It’s a massive boost for Scotland.”

 

A Royal Navy spokesman said: “HM Naval Base Clyde is the ­biggest employment site in ­Scotland, with direct employment of 6,700 military and civilian jobs.

 

“Numbers of personnel at HM Naval Base Clyde are set to increase to an estimated 8,200 by 2022 as it becomes the UK’s Sub- marine Centre of Specialisation.

 

“There are currently six sub- marines and seven mine hunters base-ported at the site. By 2022 we expect that all the Royal Navy’s submarines, and seven mine ­hunters, will be at Clyde.”

 

In response to the latest developments, the Scottish Government reiterated its plans to remove ­Trident by 2020 and keep Faslane as Scotland’s main naval base. The SNP has said the country would inherit a share of Royal Navy ­vessels, as well as investing in an undisclosed number of “new ­frigates, conventional submarines and maritime patrol aircraft”.

 

A Scottish Conservative spokesman said the investment would be a massive boost for Scotland, but warned: “Unfortunately, all we hear from the Scottish Government is how they can’t get rid of the base quickly enough. As a result, a Yes vote in September would be hugely

U.S. Navy Undersea Warfare Director Defends SSBN(X) Plans

With several defense analysts calling for the U.S. Navy to abandon its efforts to develop a new design for its SSBN(X) Ohio-class submarine replacements, the service’s undersea warfare director is defending the current course.

“Recently, a variety of writers have speculated that the required survivable deterrence could be achieved more cost effectively with the Virginia-based option or by restarting the Ohio-class SSBN production line,” says Rear Adm. Richard Breckenridge, in a recent blog. “Both of these ideas make sense at face value—which is why they were included among the alternatives assessed—but the devil is in the details. When we examined the particulars, each of these options came up short in both military effectiveness and cost efficiency.”

A Virginia-based SSBN design with a Trident II D5 missile, Breckenridge says, was “rejected due to a wide range of shortfalls.” The concept, he says, was not stealthy enough due to poor hull streamlining and lack of a drivetrain able to quietly propel a much larger ship; would have had longer refit times and a longer mid-life overhaul; would carry fewer missiles and warheads; would have exceeded cost targets because of the required extensive redesign of Virginia systems to work with the large missile compartment; and would have required a larger fleet of submarines.

“Some have encouraged the development of a new, smaller missile to go with a Virginia-based SSBN,” Breckenridge says. “This would carry forward many of the shortfalls of a Virginia-based SSBN, and add to it a long list of new issues. Developing a new nuclear missile from scratch with an industrial base that last produced a new design more than 20 years ago would be challenging, costly and require extensive testing. We deliberately decided to extend the life of the current missile to de-couple and de-risk the complex (and costly) missile development program from the new replacement submarine program.

“A smaller missile means a shorter employment range requiring longer SSBN patrol transits. This would compromise survivability, require more submarines at sea and ultimately weaken our deterrence effectiveness.”

Some have argued, he notes, that the Navy should reopen the Ohio production line and resume building the Ohio design SSBNs.

“This simply cannot be done because there is no Ohio production line,” Breckenridge says. “It has long since been retooled and modernized to build state-of-the-art Virginia-class SSNs using computerized designs and modular, automated construction techniques.”

Simply redesigning the Ohio-class subs to be built using new production methods and machinery would be a mistake, he says, since some of the newer technology would not carry over to the old design and building the ship to existing missile specifications could lead to some treaty issues.

Trident UK’s best option, says review

Britain will have to continue with the submarine-launched Trident weapons system, the long-awaited Whitehall review into the UK’s deterrent has concluded after officials rejected other options.

Other radical proposals – with missiles launched from land, air or multipurpose submarines – are either more expensive or more impractical than the current system, the Alternatives Review, to be published next month, has found.

The finding threatens to provoke a showdown in the cabinet because the Liberal Democrats have long proposed a cheaper alternative to Trident.

US Navy Defends Boomer Submarine Replacement Plans

A top U.S. Navy official is defending the service's plans to replace its Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine fleet, saying the Navy has the right design and boat numbers to execute the mission for decades to come.

"We conducted a detailed analysis of many force structure options," says Rear Adm. Barry Bruner, Navy undersea warfare director, in a recent blog. "A force of 12 Ohio Replacement nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines (SSBN) with 16 missile tubes satisfies national strategic deterrent requirements at the most affordable cost. Twelve Ohio Replacement SSBNs meet at-sea strategic patrol requirements and sustain this requirement while some of the SSBNs are unavailable due to planned maintenance."

Bruner says, "Reduced-force options [that] we considered failed to meet the current at-sea and nuclear employment requirements, increased risk for force survivability, and limited the flexibility in response to an uncertain strategic future. A 12-ship, 16-missile-tube SSBN force has sufficient, not excessive, flexibility and capacity."

He acknowledges that because ship construction of the Ohio Replacement shifted to 2021 from 2019, there will be fewer than 12 SSBNs from 2029 to 2042 as the Ohio-class retires and Ohio replacement ships join the fleet.

Addressing recent critics of the shortfalls, he says, "During this time frame no major SSBN overhauls are planned, and a force of 10 SSBNs will support current at-sea presence requirements."

However, he says, "This provides a low margin to compensate for unforeseen issues that may result in reduced SSBN availability. The reduced SSBN availability during this time frame reinforces the importance of remaining on schedule with the Ohio Replacement program to meet future strategic commitments. As the Ohio Replacement ships begin their mid-life overhauls in 2049, 12 SSBNs will be required to offset ships conducting planned maintenance."

He also says the Navy and Pentagon are keeping a lid on proposed costs. "The Department of Defense set an aggressive cost goal of $4.9 billion per hull (calendar year 2010) as an average cost for hulls 2-12. To date, the Navy has reduced costs by reducing specifications to the minimum necessary to meet national strategic deterrent requirements, implementing modular construction design, reusing the Trident II D5 Strategic Weapons System, and reusing Virginia- and Ohio-class components where feasible. The Virginia-class construction program, through aggressive management and collaboration between government and industry, has developed into a model ship building program, continually coming in under budget and ahead of schedule. Ohio Replacement design and construction will build on this success."

Credit: U.S. Navy