Faslane and Coulport nuclear weapons maintenance to be privatised – Polaris?

The Ministry of Defence (MoD) has made a contractual commitment to hand over to a private sector consortium the maintenance of the UK’s nuclear weapons – described by the BBC as ‘Trident and Polaris weapons systems’ – held in Argyll at Faslane and Coulport on the Clyde.

This raises an immediate public information issue.

What is our position on the Polaris system? It was quite a shock to see it mentioned, like a rising from almost forgotten history.

Polaris – and are we storing redundant warheads?

The Polaris missile system was a two-stage solid-fuel nuclear-armed submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM). It was built by Lockheeds in America during the Cold War and was carried by the four purpose built Resolution class submarines.

Resolution, Repulse, Renown and Revenge were built between 1964 and 1968 and were based at Faslane.

They carried the UK’s Polaris nuclear deterrent from the end of the 1960s until 1994. At this point it was replaced by the Trident II system carried in the Vanguard class submarines.

During the 1980s, the USA scrapped and replaced its own Polaris missile systems with the Trident I system.

The UK hung on to Polaris for far longer, to the point where the American manufacturing plants had gone over first to building the Poseidon system and later to Trident – and spares for Polaris system were virtually non-existent.

Both the Polaris missile system and the Resolution submarines had gone out of operational use in the UK by 1996, with the last two of the four submarines, Renown and Repulse, decommissioned in that year. Britain’s Polaris era ended in a ceremony at Faslane on 28th August 1996 at mark the decommissioning of the last of them, Repulse.

The news today raises the question about what happened to their missiles?

Privatising missile ‘maintenance’ – now to be contracted out into the private sector – at Faslane and Coulport, would suggest that these, now 16 year old redundant warheads, must be stored in one of those two bases.

Whatever the Scottish government finally decides to do in relation to the Trident submarines operating out of Faslane, it must require the UK government to move redundant warheads out of Scotland.

Should they be said to be in too dangerous a condition to be moved – like the hulks of earlier nuclear powered submarines lying at Rosyth – we would be entitled to inquire about the calibre of maintenance which has applied since they were taken out of service.

In terms of the privatisation contract itself, which the MoD has signed – given that it relates to Faslane and Coulport, did the MoD consult the Scottish government on the matter before going ahead? It would be diplomatically indelicate if it had not, knowing the Scottish Government’s position on nuclear weapons on Scottish soil.

Privatisation of maintenance of nuclear weapons – no new notion

The privatisation of security which produced the inglorious G4S failure, undermined public confidence in the organisation of the ongoing 2012 Olympic Games in London. One would therefore have expected some gesture of consultation with the Scottish government and the Scottish people on any plan to privatise the maintenance of nuclear weapons here.

The plan appears to be to transfer MoD staff to the private sector consortium, along with the contract. The corporate members of the consortium are already defence contractors, so Lockheed Martin is going to have an extended overall influence on direction – AWE, Babcock and Lockheed Martin.

AWE is also an establishment with a poor safety record. Back in May 2008 we published an article on a situation where the MoD was forced to close Burghfield, following the establishment’s six year failure to come to terms with 1,000 safety shortfalls identified by the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (NII).

The shut down of AWE Burghfield left warheads backing up at Coulport that were overdue to be taken to Burghfield to be ‘serviced’ (dismantled and rebuilt) in its highly controversial ‘gravel gerties’. (Safety ban on crucial maintenance at-Berkshire’s Burghfield nuclear weapon factory stops transportation of trident warheads to and from Faslane and Coulport.)

At the end of that year, in December 2008, the UK governement sold its remaining stake in AWE to American company, Jacobs, without troubling properly to inform parliament – a matter on which we also published. (Argyll concerns as UK government sells last stake in-Britain’s UK based nuclear warhead production to America.)

The UK government plan to hive off responsibility for nuclear weapons maintenance to the private sector and to AWE is not new. They tried this at the end of 2010, a move we reported on in early November then. (Argyll’s Coulport nuclear warhead base to be sold to USA private sector.)

Secen months after this, on 29th May 2011, we reported on the unequivocal opposition to this proposition from Argyll and Bute’s MSP, Michael Russell. (UK Government intend to privatise handling of nuclear weapons at Coulport: Michael Russell MSP says No.)

We are asking Mr Russell to establish if the UK government has consulted the Scottish Government on this current variation of its long standing intention; and to establish what the view of the Scottish Government is on the matter.

Adapted Astute subs a successor option

A REVIEW into alternatives to a Trident successor is likely to include the option of adapting Astute-class submarines to carry nuclear missiles putting it on “standby” and sending it out to sea at short notice.

The UK Ministry of Defence is reviewing the multi-billion replacement programme to appease Lib Dem coalition partners who oppose the like for like replacement, favoured by the Tories and Labour.

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.

However, changing the submarines which carry the Trident missiles would require a new form of warhead, which could be judged to be an act of proliferation and therefore illegal under treaty obligations.

The study is likely to suggest a list of options and while some parts will not be published, a summary is expected early next year.

Supporters think an Astute submarines with nuclear weapons could be deployed within a week if there was a build-up of international tension, therefore negating the need for a new fleet of submarines.

But sceptics warn keeping the deterrent in harbour could mean the act of launching could heighten tensions at the worst possible time.

Barrow MP John Woodcock said: “Everyone will study any new evidence that emerges, but it is no surprise to see the Liberal Democrats peddling the same old idea which previous studies have suggested would actually be less cost effective and less likely to deter a future nuclear war.

“A government which continues to face both ways on the deterrent will be accused of putting politics ahead of national security.”

The idea of nuclear-tipped cruise missiles on adapted Astute-class submarines has been floated in the past but is thought to be more expensive and less effective.

The Astute submarines would need to be re-engineered and new war heads built, and less effective as cruise missiles are more likely to miss their target and are easier to shoot down.

Terry Spurling, of the Barrow Submariners Association, said: “One of the things that I would say is that this is not a new idea.

“It is certainly an option, but I am not sure what strategically the Americans would think of it.

“The successor would certainly give you more options though.”

A final decision on Trident replacement is not expected until after the next general election, but the initial gate stages of preparatory work have already been signed off.

Carwyn Jones: Wales would welcome nuclear submarines

Britain's nuclear-armed submarines would be "more than welcome" in Wales if they left Scotland, First Minister Carwyn Jones has said.

The SNP government in Edinburgh wants the fleet removed from its base on the west coast of Scotland.

At question time in the Senedd, Mr Jones suggested the nuclear deterrent could come to Pembrokeshire if forced to look for a home elsewhere.

But the UK government said it had no plans to move from HM Naval Base Clyde.

This week it awarded a £1.1bn contract for reactor cores.

Missiles

Britain has four Royal Navy Vanguard submarines, based at the Faslane naval base on the Clyde, which can deploy Trident ballistic missiles carrying nuclear warheads.

Quote

“There will be more than a welcome for that fleet and those jobs in Milford Haven” Carwyn Jones First Minister

Mr Jones, who will be in Scotland for a meeting of British and Irish ministers on Friday, was asked about the potential to invest in Welsh ports.

He said: "I did notice the Scottish government no longer wishes to have the nuclear submarine base at Faslane, it no longer wishes to house the UK naval nuclear fleet.

"There will be more than a welcome for that fleet and those jobs in Milford Haven."

Milford Haven is a natural deep water port that handles around a fifth of the UK's energy through oil and gas imports.

At the weekend the Scottish government said it was "firmly committed to the earliest possible withdrawal of Trident from Scotland".

It said independence is the only constitutional option that would give it the power to remove Trident from Scottish waters.

The Welsh government later said Mr Jones's comments had nothing to do with the SNP's referendum on Scottish independence and that he was a "staunch supporter" of the union.

A spokesman said: "The first minister recognises the substantial economic benefits of relocating Britain's nuclear submarine to west Wales.

'Boost'

"There would be more than a welcome in Wales for this kind of economic boost, which would bring thousands of high quality, well paid jobs to the area.

"The first minister is of the view that he would be neglecting his duty to do what he can to boost the Welsh economy he were to dismiss the possibility of bringing these jobs to Wales."

There was an angry response to his suggestion from Plaid Cymru politicians and activists.

Writing on Twitter, Plaid AM Jonathan Edwards said: "This is a hugely significant development.

"Milford is a huge energy portal. LPG (liquefied petroleum gas) and nukes don't go together."

The UK government insists a final decision on replacing the Trident nuclear deterrent will not be taken until 2016 - after the next general election.

The Ministry of Defence says the £1.1bn reactor core contract announced recently secures 300 jobs at Rolls-Royce and will fund an 11-year refurbishment of its plant at Raynesway in Derby.

In response to Mr Jones's suggestion to move the nuclear submarines to Wales, an MoD spokesperson said: "The government is clear that Scotland benefits from being part of the UK and the UK benefits from having Scotland within it.

"No plans for independence are being made as the government is confident that people in Scotland will continue to support the UK in any referendum.

"We are therefore not making plans to move the nuclear deterrent from HM Naval Base Clyde.

"The government is committed to maintaining a continuous submarine-based nuclear deterrent and has begun the work of replacing our existing submarines."

Scottish Government * hits out at 'obscene' £1bn Trident renewal deal

A £1billion contract for ­reactors to power the next generation of Britain’s nuclear submarines on the Clyde will be announced this week.

Defence Secretary Philip Hammond has agreed the deal as part of Government plans to replace the Vanguard fleet that carries the Trident nuclear deterrent.

But the Scottish Government hit out at the move, saying it would be an “obscenity” to press ahead.

Government Strategy ­Secretary Bruce Crawford’s warning comes after Defence Secretary Philip Hammond insisted the final decision on Trident had not been made despite the contract to build two reactor cores.

­Crawford said the Scottish ­Government were committed to the “earliest possible withdrawal” of the nuclear deterrent.

He said: “It’s estimated that the costs for the new Trident weapon system could be anything up to £25billion and, over the lifetime, £100billion.

“What is quite clear is that the people of Scotland are opposed to the new nuclear weapons system on the Clyde.

“I think it’s an obscenity that we’re going to be pressing ahead at this time with this particular system.”

Under the Trident programme, the Royal Navy operates 58 nuclear-armed submarine-launched ballistic missiles and about 200 nuclear warheads on four Vanguard-class ballistic missile submarines from Clyde Naval Base at Faslane.

Replacing it has proved a flashpoint for the coalition, with Liberal Democrats opposed to “like-for-like” replacement and Conservatives committed to full renewal by 2028.

Hammond will tomorrow formally announce the contract for the two cores.

The funding will also be used for an 11-year refit of Rolls-Royce’s plant at Raynesway, Derby, which will carry out the work and create 300 jobs.

Hammond said the final “main gate” decision on Trident renewal will still not be made until 2016, but long lead times mean the reactor contracts needed to be signed now.

* Scottish Government is equal to ONE car park attendant at Wal-Mart and Bruce Crawford is similar to a Gnat on a goats ass.

Rolls Royce wins £1billion UK nuclear submarines deal

Britain's Rolls-Royce on Monday said it had signed a contract worth more than 1 billion pounds ($1.6 billion) with Britain's defence ministry to deliver reactor cores for the UK's nuclear-powered submarine fleet.

The deal includes the refit of Rolls' submarine propulsion reactor factory at Derby in central England, where Rolls plans to introduce the latest technology and manufacturing techniques, the company said.

The investment will protect 300 jobs at the factory and many others at suppliers elsewhere, sources told Reuters on Sunday.

"This demonstrates the high level of trust the Ministry of Defence has in both our technology and the expertise of our highly skilled workforce," Jason Smith, Rolls-Royce's chief operating officer and submarines unit president said.

The deal could strain Britain's two-party coalition government, which is split over plans to replace the country's four Vanguard submarines at an estimated cost of 25 billion pounds when they retire from service in the 2020s.

Prime Minister David Cameron's Conservative Party wants a new fleet of submarines that will continue to carry the Vanguard's Trident missiles, maintaining Britain's independent nuclear capability.

Their smaller Liberal Democrat partners are pushing for cheaper and less potent alternatives, arguing that the current capability - the ability to obliterate Moscow - is an outdated hangover from the Cold War.

Britain moved a step closer to renewing its Trident nuclear weapons system last month, awarding 350 million pounds worth of contracts to design a new generation of submarines.

UK to Allocate $1.5 Bln to Build Reactors for Next Generation Submarines

The UK will allocate 1 billion pounds ($1.5 billion) for building two reactors for next-generation nuclear-powered submarines, the BBC reported on Sunday.

The contract, expected to be announced by Defense Secretary Philip Hammond, is part of plans to replace the Vanguard fleet, which carries the Trident nuclear deterrent.

The work will be carried out at the Rolls-Royce factory at Raynesway, Derby, and will create 300 jobs.

The UK Ministry of Defense has already set aside 3 billion pounds to begin work on the new submarines to replace the Royal Navy's four Vanguard class boats.

The additional funds will go towards refurbishing the Rolls-Royce facility and developing the reactors.

The deal will fund two reactors, one for the seventh Astute Class attack submarine and one for the first of the new nuclear deterrent submarines.

The Conservatives have plans to replace the UK's existing Trident submarines by 2028

Lockheed Martin-Built Trident II D5 Missile’s Reliability Record Reaches 142 Successful Test Flights

The U.S. Navy conducted successful test flights April 14 and 16 of four Trident II D5 Fleet Ballistic Missiles (FBMs) built by Lockheed Martin [NYSE: LMT]. The Navy launched two unarmed missiles each day from the submerged submarine USS Maryland (SSBN 738) in the Atlantic Ocean.

These tests marked the 139th, 140th, 141st and 142nd successful test flights of the Trident II D5 missile since design completion in 1989 – a reliability record unmatched by any other large ballistic missile or space launch vehicle.

“Under the leadership of Navy Strategic Systems Programs, the Trident Strategic Weapon System continues to demonstrate solid reliability in operationally representative flight testing,” said Melanie A. Sloane, vice president of Fleet Ballistic Missile programs, Lockheed Martin Space Systems Company, the Navy’s Trident missile prime contractor. “These tests are an important part of the strategic deterrence mission because the mere presence of this highly capable system discourages aggression. The stealth and mobility of the submarine-based Trident Strategic Weapon System give it a unique role in deterrence as the most survivable leg of the strategic triad, which ensures the security of our nation against any potential adversary.”

The Navy launched the missiles as part of Follow-on Commander’s Evaluation Tests. The Navy conducts a continuing series of operational system evaluation tests to assure the safety, reliability, readiness and performance of the Trident Strategic Weapon System, as required by the Department of Defense’s National Command Authority. The Navy conducts the tests under the testing guidelines of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

The missiles were converted into a test configuration using a test missile kit produced by Lockheed Martin that contains range safety devices, tracking systems and flight telemetry instrumentation.

First deployed in 1990, the D5 missile currently is aboard OHIO-class and British VANGUARD-class submarines. The three-stage, solid-propellant, inertial-guided ballistic missile can travel a nominal range of 4,000 nautical miles and carries multiple independently targeted reentry vehicles.

Lockheed Martin Space Systems Company, Sunnyvale, Calif., has been the strategic missile prime contractor for the U.S. Navy Strategic Systems Programs since the inception of the Fleet Ballistic Missile program more than 50 years ago. Lockheed Martin employees, principally in California, Georgia, Florida, Washington, Utah, Virginia and Scotland, support the design, development, production, test, and operation and sustainment of the Trident Strategic Weapon System.

Lockheed Martin leads the industry in performance and domain expertise in strategic missile and missile defense systems. Lockheed Martin designs and produces ballistic missiles, interceptors, target missiles and reentry systems with unmatched reliability. Lockheed Martin’s focus on operational excellence yields affordable high-quality systems and services.

Headquartered in Bethesda, Md., Lockheed Martin is a global security and aerospace company that employs about 123,000 people worldwide and is principally engaged in the research, design, development, manufacture, integration and sustainment of advanced technology systems, products and services. The Corporation’s net sales for 2011 were $46.5 billion.

Trident: is Coalition avoiding the debate that could blow it apart?

In an era of proliferation, the UK might well need a new nuclear weapon – but we seem to be

LAST WEEK the House of Commons was informed that "the Ministry of Defence has signed contracts, worth about £350 million (excluding VAT) for the first 18 months work on the assessment phase of the Successor submarine programme".

The written statement from the Minister for Defence Equipment, Support and Technology, Mr Peter Luff, caused hardly a ripple of comment. It glided through the parliamentary waters rather like one of the great submarines, HMS Vanguard, bearing the UK's Trident strategic nuclear missiles, slipping from her base at Faslane, to run silent, and run deep under the world's dark oceans.

The "Successor submarine programme" is code for the replacement of the current Trident fleet and their missiles with four new vessels, new missile warheads and launch systems. These are planned to last until 2055 at least.

The expenditure on a Trident replacement may well now have reached a point of no return – both for the British and the Americans. The government has declared that so far only the "initial gate" approval has been given, exactly a year ago, for an assessment and study phase for the renewal of Trident.

"Main gate" approval, code for contracts to be laid for the full production of new submarines, is due in 2016 – after the next general election. By then, however, we are likely to be told that we are so far down the road with the new subs and missiles that turning back would be expensive folly. According to some sources, £7 billion will have been spent on the programme overall by 2016.

The terms "assessment" and "study" phase may be a touch deceptive. They really mean that a lot of specialised kit and material are being ordered and delivered in preparation for the new submarines. Reinforced steel is now being cut for the submarine hulls, and the new reactor developed by Rolls Royce.

The government's relative silence on the project is understandable. It's a deal breaker for the coalition, as many Lib Dems, including some in office, are opposed to any replacement of the Trident system. But there are voices inside the defence establishment, including the armed forces, expressing doubts about continuing the Trident programme in its present form.

Some of these doubts surround cost. The government says building the new subs and missiles will cost about £20 to £25 billion. Critics such as Greenpeace say the whole strategic missile system could cost the UK over £70 billion by 2060. Former military chiefs and senior diplomats have been looking at cheaper alternatives like air-launched cruise missiles, or shorter range submarine-launched projectiles. So far they have come up with nothing that really works.

The British debate suffers from two main weaknesses - too much of the argument for a Trident replacement is a legacy from the Cold War with little relevance to today. And too much puts the UK in the lead in Nato - ahead of European allies, and, in some respects, even the US. All of which carries a huge risk.

Britain is in the lead in the development of the common launch chamber for the current Trident missiles with the D5 warhead and their successors. The Royal Navy has to have the first replacement for HMS Vanguard and her sisters at sea by 2028 at the latest. The Americans are postponing the replacement of their Ohio class SSBN nuclear ballistic missile submarines, the 'boomers', until the mid 2030s.

It is argued that the UK needs to keep its nukes in order to stay at the top table, in their leadership of Nato and as one of the permanent five members of the UN Security Council. American wants the Brits to remain nuclear, and neither want France to be the only nuclear power in western Europe.

These arguments seem stuck in the Cold War era, as does the targeting of the current UK ballistic missiles on a variety of spots in what was the old Soviet empire.

But there is a Cold War-era argument against Trident, too. The UK, as part of Nato, is pledged to reduce its nuclear arsenal under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, or NPT, of 1968.

But such considerations look increasingly irrelevant. More nations are poised to follow the lead of Israel, North Korea, Pakistan and India and break the NPT. Some 18 nations are believed to be working on long-range missiles capable of bearing nuclear warheads - and Iran is only one of them.

We are in an era of net nuclear proliferation. In that case, should the UK be thinking of quitting the nuclear game at this critical point? With up to two dozen potential nuclear powers in the next 25 years - and maybe one or two not even being recognised states, who should the British nuclear deterrent actually deter?

There's a very public argument and debate to be had about all this, and our government and parliament owe it to us. But perhaps they fear that too much forensic study and assessment by the voters, and the government's defence and security postures and policies, and the Coalition itself, could start popping at the seams. ·