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

Nuclear submarine to get new core after test reactor problem

Low levels of radioactivity have been discovered in the cooling waters of a nuclear submarine test reactor at Dounreay, Defence Secretary Philip Hammond has said.

Mr Hammond told MPs that no leak had occurred and said there were no safety implications for staff working on the site, or risks to the environment.

But, as a result, HMS Vanguard is to be refuelled with a new nuclear core at a cost of £120m.

The problem was discovered in 2012.

Labour criticised the government for not announcing the information earlier, calling it a matter of "national importance".

'Below scale'

Although the news is only being made public now, the Ministry of Defence says the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and the defence nuclear inspectorate were kept informed.

Mr Hammond said the Vulcan Naval Reactor Test Establishment ran at higher levels of intensity than those on Britain's fleet of nuclear submarines and was designed to pre-empt any similar problems with the reactors on board those vessels.

The defence secretary said: "These low levels of radioactivity are a normal product of a nuclear reaction that takes place within the fuel but they would not normally enter the cooling water.

"This water is contained within the sealed reactor circuit and I can reassure the House there has been no detectable radiation leak from that sealed circuit.

"Indeed, against the International Atomic Energy Agency's measurement scale for nuclear-related events this issue is classed Level 0, described as 'below scale - no safety significance'."

The refuelling of HMS Vanguard - the UK's oldest nuclear submarine - will take place during its next scheduled "deep maintenance period", due to last three and a half years from 2015.

'National security'

Mr Hammond said: "This is the responsible option: replacing the core on a precautionary basis at the next opportunity, rather than waiting to see if the core needs to be replaced at a later date which would mean returning Vanguard for a period of unscheduled deep maintenance, potentially putting at risk the resilience of our ballistic missile submarine operations."

Mr Hammond said a decision on refuelling the next-oldest submarine, HMS Victorious, would not need to be taken until 2018.

New submarines for the Trident replacement programme, known as the Successor submarines, will not be affected by the problem, he added.

For Labour, shadow defence secretary Vernon Coaker said the government should have told the Commons earlier about the fault.

He added: "There must be public confidence in the government to be open and transparent on these matters.

"A fault, however small, that develops in a nuclear reactor is something that the British people and this House should have been told about. This is an issue of national security and national importance."

 

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.

Most Scots Support Nuclear Deterrent

A majority of Scottish people support a new nuclear deterrent, according to a new poll.

Carried out by Lord Ashcroft, the survey found 51% of Scots think Trident should be replaced and 43% believe the UK's nuclear stockpile should remain in Scotland.

The figures are significant because the impression had previously been that Scotland was generally opposed to having a nuclear deterrent based in the country - something the SNP has been keen to point out.

Lord Ashcroft, a Conservative peer, carried this poll out independently of his Tory loyalties but it will certainly be read with interest in Downing Street.

The Government has pushed the defence argument strongly of late to exploit the lack of a credible defence policy from the SNP.

The findings are contrary to a similar poll carried out in February, which recorded 60% opposition to a nuclear replacement, but Lord Ashcroft points out that this survey was conducted for CND and the wording of the question was misleading.

"Trying to show that people think what you want them to think is not the same thing as trying to find out what they really do think," he said.

"I am more interested in the latter - so last week I asked what people in Scotland really do think about Trident.

"In the event of Scotland becoming independent, only half of Scots thought Britain's nuclear weapons should cease to be based at Faslane; 35% would be happy to see the UK lease the naval base, with 15% undecided.

"Again, those in favour of independence opposed the idea by more than two to one."

Earlier this year David Cameron visited HMS Victorious, one of the Vanguard class nuclear submarines.

He used the visit to push the case for the Union and to make the point that if Scotland were to vote for independence, thousands of jobs would be lost in the defence industry - especially if the nuclear deterrent was moved south.

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

UK - ‘MoD support growing for Trident alternative’

The coalition government has been accused of putting national security at risk with its two opposing positions on Trident renewal.

The Lib Dems are either being “ill-informed” about the need for a replacement fleet of nuclear missile-carrying submarines or are trying to “pull the wool” over people’s eyes, Barrow MP John Woodcock has claimed.

He made the comments as Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg told the party conference in Brighton of his desire for an alternative to Trident nuclear submarines and promised to play “hardball” with David Cameron over the Successor programme. He also used Trident as an example of Conservative policies blocked by the Lib Dems, including stopping the nuclear deterrent replacement being approved in this parliament.

In response to Mr Clegg’s announcement, Westmorland and Lonsdale MP Tim Farron said he believed there is growing support within the Ministry of Defence for an

alternative to a direct Trident replacement. He added: “We recognise the submarines need to be built in Barrow, but not nuclear ones.

“It will be better for the Cumbrian economy if we want the full range of submarines, not just those with nuclear missiles.”

The plan preferred by the Lib Dems would see nuclear warheads fired from existing Astute submarines, eliminating the need to replace the Vanguard-class nuclear boats. A final decision is not expected until after the next general election, but the initial gate stages of preparatory work have already been signed off, resulting in more jobs being created at BAE Systems’ Barrow shipyard.

Mr Woodcock said: “I have worked well with Tim Farron on a number of issues, but on renewal of the deterrent the Lib Dems are either cosmically ill-informed or seeking to pull the wool over the eyes of many thousands whose jobs depend on a thriving shipyard.

“Unfortunately, this hopeless muddle reflects the wider risk to jobs and national security caused by the coalition facing both ways on renewal.

“It is right for any government to examine credible new evidence on the deterrent, but studies produced so far have suggested that the Lib Dem alternative of nuclear-tipped cruise missiles on Astute-class submarines could be more expensive, less effective, and more likely to trigger a nuclear conflict – the opposite of the myth peddled by the Liberal Democrats.”

Chief secretary to the treasury Danny Alexander has been put in charge of the government review of alternatives to the Trident nuclear missile system after the only Lib Dem in the Ministry of Defence was moved in the government reshuffle.

The study is being carried out to appease Lib Dem coalition partners who are opposed to a like-for-like replacement of Trident.

Trident submarine missiles review to suggest 'stepping down nuclear ladder'

Ousted defence minister Nick Harvey claims military and Whitehall backing for cheaper alternatives

The government's review of the future of the Trident submarine nuclear missile system is likely to suggest a significant downgrading of the UK's nuclear deterrent, including the possibility of locking the warheads "in a cupboard" for delayed launch only after several weeks of mounting international tension.

The revelation was made by Sir Nick Harvey, the Liberal Democrat who was the defence minister leading the review until the government reshuffle this month. The MP for North Devon said he believed the policy could get support in Whitehall and from senior military figures and Labour.

Harvey said past policy on Trident had been dictated by the 1980s view that the only deterrent to a nuclear attack from the then Soviet Union was the belief that the UK could "flatten Moscow" in retaliation. This led to the UK building Trident and having at least one armed submarine at sea every hour of every day since.

Speaking in detail about the Trident review for the first time since he was sacked as minister, Harvey said: "If you can just break yourself out of that frankly almost lunatic mindset for a second, all sorts of alternatives start to look possible, indeed credible."

He continued: "The Russia of the 21st century – economically diverse, vaguely democratic, but definitely a very different sort of place from where it was in 1980 – might find all sorts of damage to be unacceptable short of flattening Moscow.

"Therefore to convince ourselves that the only point of having any deterrent at all is the capability of flattening Moscow is the wrong and distorting lens through which to view the debate."

Instead of replacing Trident with a like-for-like 24-hour nuclear armed submarine presence at sea after the current system is due to be taken out of service in 2028, cheaper alternatives are being considered. These range from stepping down the patrols, to designing missiles to be launched from aircraft, surface navy ships or land, to a delayed launch system.

The delayed-launch model would involve developing a nuclear warhead for a cruise missile that could be launched from existing Astute submarines, Harvey said, "but having perfected that technology simply put it away in a cupboard and keep it as a contingency in case there ever were to be a deterioration in the global security picture that might need the UK government to take it out of the cupboard".

In this situation, the UK would store the warheads in a secure military location, from where they could be removed, put on the tip of a missile and put to sea within weeks or months.

Challenged as to why the review did not consider nuclear disarmament, Harvey said: "I think you might struggle to persuade the British public to do that, but I think you might persuade them to go down to the penultimate step: you keep something for a rainy day, but putting it away and not having it as part of your everyday activity."

Harvey told a fringe debate at the Liberal Democrat conference in Brighton that the idea of moving "down the nuclear ladder" had support across all three armed services: the army, the Royal Navy and the RAF.

He said one reason for growing support for the review's alternatives was a "perfect storm" of defence capital costs around 2020, including building the new joint strike fighter aircraft and Type 26 frigates, a new generation of unmanned aircraft, and amphibious craft for the navy.

The army, he said, was "driving around in vehicles which are literally about to fall to pieces".

If defence ministers in 2020 were not to be put in an impossible position, the defence ministers of the next couple of years would have to take the necessary decisions to avert a crisis.

He said: "Believe you me there are very senior figures of all three services who are highly aware of that perfect storm of these costs, who don't believe the Treasury is going suddenly ride to their rescue with a cheque and who are asking, 'Is the opportunity cost of having another generation of nuclear weapons too high, in terms of of what it would prevent us doing on other fronts?'"

He added: "I can't say with certainty how they [military chiefs] will respond, but a number of them made the point to me to not portray it [the report] in such a political and party way that you don't create the space for some of us to support you and try and help."

It was not impossible that the review could get support from the Whitehall security sector, said Harvey, who was also hopeful that Labour, or parts of the party, would support the review's conclusion.

He added: "The UK national security strategy no longer even identifies the nuclear menace as a tier one threat."

In a sign of the potential political row brewing over Trident, John Woodcock, the Labour MP for Barrow in Furness, where new Trident subs would be built, this week accused the Lib Dems of being in a "hopeless muddle" over the issue.

"The Lib Dems are either cosmically ill-informed or seeking to pull the wool over the eyes of many thousands whose jobs depend on a thriving shipyard," he said.

Harvey's response was that creating jobs in Barrow should be the last consideration. "The idea that you should produce weapons of mass destruction in order to keep 1,500 jobs going in the Barrow shipyard is palpably ludicrous. We could give them all a couple of million quid and send them to the Bahamas for the rest of their lives , and the world would be a much better place, and we would have saved a lot of money," he said.

"I had wanted my legacy to be bringing the UK down the nuclear ladder," added Harvey, who was knighted after his dismissal in the reshuffle.

However, Professor Malcolm Chalmers, research director at the defence think-tank Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), raised concerns about possible savings by scrapping a Trident replacement, saying he was not yet convinced by the figures.

"If you end up going for an option which steps down the ladder but you don't save any money it's a political non-starter," he said.

The review was made part of the coalition agreement between the Lib Dems and the Conservatives after the 2010 election because the two parties disagreed strongly on the issue. After Labour decided in 2007 to replace Trident with a like-for-like system, the Lib Dems went into the 2010 general election opposing that policy while the Tories supported it.

The review is now being headed by Danny Alexander, the chief secretary to the Treasury, who is a Lib Dem.