View Poll Results: Trident - Replace?
Replace with a new UK designed warhead
30
30.93%
Buy a whole system off someone else
16
16.49%
Scrap the lot and have no nuclear defence strategy at all
17
17.53%
Design and build the complete system as a UK project
34
35.05%
Voters: 97. You may not vote on this poll
Replace Trident?
24 November 2006, 10:08 AM
#31
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Worthing..
Posts: 7,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by pslewis
We are simply maintaining capability - the ability to design and build if the government of the day wished to go that way.
And we cannot recruit permanent staff .... we have been swamped with contractors who are getting paid massive amounts, but can be easily disposed of if the decision is not to replace with a new design.
If the vote is to design a new one it will be all hands to the pumps for 15 years ... I was there when Trident hit the drawing boards - it was fantastic, mad and manic, but brilliant ...................... bring it on!
And we cannot recruit permanent staff .... we have been swamped with contractors who are getting paid massive amounts, but can be easily disposed of if the decision is not to replace with a new design.
If the vote is to design a new one it will be all hands to the pumps for 15 years ... I was there when Trident hit the drawing boards - it was fantastic, mad and manic, but brilliant ...................... bring it on!
Defence work is indeed an interesting line - if somehwhat underpaid. I spent 8 years working for what was then Marconi Defence Systems, (now part of BAE) and there was some very interesting work. During the first gulf war I was working in 24 hour shifts, going home for a few hours kip, then coming back in - Mainly for Foxhunter radar on the Tornado. Then there was the EFA work (later to become Eurofighter), mostly the Missile Approch warning system. And a very very hush hush project that is just seeing fruition now, although not yet in service, I had to have my grandparents checked out before I could work on that
.What people don't realise is just how long it akes to develop military product. What you see as "new" now, probably started development 15 years ago.
24 November 2006, 11:55 AM
#32
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We need a deterrent not only for our own protection but also to ensure that we have a voice in future foreign affairs.
No one takes any notice of Billy Boy any more now of course, unless he offers them a couple of hundred million or so and then they will appear to agree with him. I am thinking of the future however.
Hard to say whether we should build our own, they could use lottery funding towards it of course if there is any left after the Olympics 2014, or whether we should buy a system that works from someone else.
Les
No one takes any notice of Billy Boy any more now of course, unless he offers them a couple of hundred million or so and then they will appear to agree with him. I am thinking of the future however.
Hard to say whether we should build our own, they could use lottery funding towards it of course if there is any left after the Olympics 2014, or whether we should buy a system that works from someone else.
Les
24 November 2006, 12:31 PM
#34
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 3,236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
"Thought you were 78 or whatever you are claiming this week."
That's exactly what I was thinking? So you have an interest in this project because your employment depends on it. If it will take 15 years, that will see you through to the ripe old age of 93!
So let's recap, you expect us to believe that 93 years olds are working on our defence systems?
PS. Did your 100 year old father buy his Ford Galaxy?
"Thought you were 78 or whatever you are claiming this week."
That's exactly what I was thinking? So you have an interest in this project because your employment depends on it. If it will take 15 years, that will see you through to the ripe old age of 93!
So let's recap, you expect us to believe that 93 years olds are working on our defence systems?
PS. Did your 100 year old father buy his Ford Galaxy?
24 November 2006, 12:58 PM
#35
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by Paul3446
Quote:
"Thought you were 78 or whatever you are claiming this week."
That's exactly what I was thinking? So you have an interest in this project because your employment depends on it. If it will take 15 years, that will see you through to the ripe old age of 93!
So let's recap, you expect us to believe that 93 years olds are working on our defence systems?
PS. Did your 100 year old father buy his Ford Galaxy?
"Thought you were 78 or whatever you are claiming this week."
That's exactly what I was thinking? So you have an interest in this project because your employment depends on it. If it will take 15 years, that will see you through to the ripe old age of 93!
So let's recap, you expect us to believe that 93 years olds are working on our defence systems?
PS. Did your 100 year old father buy his Ford Galaxy?
No-one ever suggested that a 93 year old would be working on a defence system - but, these days, why not? I would be interetested to see your reasoning for that?
24 November 2006, 02:12 PM
#37
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: New Milton, Hants
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We should develop and build our own - £25 billion in to the economy sounds like good news for everyone. It also helps maintain some independence from the US.
As said above, defence systems take a long time to develop - I saw the prototype Eurofighter in 1983 and it was already flying then ! I think it was basically a Tornado with a body kit
Above, SJ Skyline was comparing trying to keep Trident going with buying more petrol for a car. Sure, in an old car you can keep putting the consumables in, so long as you can get them, but with an old car things break which you can't get replacements for or the car rusts to bits - eventually you have to either do a full renovation, which would cost more than buying a new car or you just scrap it - similar with Trident I guess.
As said above, defence systems take a long time to develop - I saw the prototype Eurofighter in 1983 and it was already flying then ! I think it was basically a Tornado with a body kit
Above, SJ Skyline was comparing trying to keep Trident going with buying more petrol for a car. Sure, in an old car you can keep putting the consumables in, so long as you can get them, but with an old car things break which you can't get replacements for or the car rusts to bits - eventually you have to either do a full renovation, which would cost more than buying a new car or you just scrap it - similar with Trident I guess.
24 November 2006, 02:40 PM
#38
Scooby Senior
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wildberg, Germany/Reading, UK
Posts: 9,707
Likes: 0
Received 73 Likes
on
54 Posts
why do we need a new one why can't we just improve/upgrade what we already have, surely a missile is a missile!! just stick a bigger engine in it and better guidance system. Why reinvent the wheel when we never use the things anyway.
24 November 2006, 02:46 PM
#40
My team discussed the merits of lottery funding for a nuclear weapons programme over lunch and we decided it's a great idea. With all missiles branded with a big thumbs up sign they could lower costs by keeping the same strapline - "It could be you" 
they could lower costs by keeping the same strapline - "It could be you"
24 November 2006, 02:49 PM
#41
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 3,236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
"No-one ever suggested that a 93 year old would be working on a defence system - but, these days, why not? I would be interetested to see your reasoning for that?"
Erm, senile dementia?
I know you're only trolling, but it's funny how in the real world, 50 year olds complain that finding a job is really hard due to ageism, yet in the world of PS Lewis, 93 year olds are ideal candidates to develop defence systems to protect the nation from World War III.
"No-one ever suggested that a 93 year old would be working on a defence system - but, these days, why not? I would be interetested to see your reasoning for that?"
Erm, senile dementia?
I know you're only trolling, but it's funny how in the real world, 50 year olds complain that finding a job is really hard due to ageism, yet in the world of PS Lewis, 93 year olds are ideal candidates to develop defence systems to protect the nation from World War III.
24 November 2006, 04:03 PM
#42
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 2,644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whats the point? We are most unlikely to ever go to war with the yanks. We have a "special relationship" with them, let use their nuclear arsenal as our own deterrent and save 25 billion.
24 November 2006, 04:20 PM
#43
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by Paul3446
Quote:
in the real world, 50 year olds complain that finding a job is really hard due to ageism, yet in the world of PS Lewis, 78 year olds are ideal candidates to develop defence systems to protect the nation from World War III.
in the real world, 50 year olds complain that finding a job is really hard due to ageism, yet in the world of PS Lewis, 78 year olds are ideal candidates to develop defence systems to protect the nation from World War III.
(no offence to IT People, by the way!)
Spot the difference?? Good God - some people
24 November 2006, 04:23 PM
#44
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by Buckrogers
lets use their nuclear arsenal as our own deterrent and save 25 billion.
£25Billion will be well spent on me and my houses and cars and BIG TVs and holidays and ........ you know - it all comes back to you eventually
24 November 2006, 04:26 PM
#45
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Weston Super Mare, Somerset.
Posts: 14,102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by SJ_Skyline
My team discussed the merits of lottery funding for a nuclear weapons programme over lunch and we decided it's a great idea. With all missiles branded with a big thumbs up sign they could lower costs by keeping the same strapline - "It could be you"
they could lower costs by keeping the same strapline - "It could be you" And to add to the fun you make some bouncy ***** with countries instead of numbers. So you have Korea, Iran, Iraq etc all bouncing up and down on the airstream and then some dolly bird presses the button
Oh and for even more fun have a few ***** with things like "Wales" "Scotland" "Isle of Wight" "11, Downing St" on them to keep peeps on their toes
03 December 2006, 06:08 PM
#47
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: was he a creature, an alien, or a man wearing some strange costume and a hidden jumping apparatus
Posts: 319
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lewis has been 78 for about 4 years now. What a *** we all know he really works as a trolley attendant in real life.
Anyway - we should scrap this expensive waste of money and stop trying and failing to punch above our weight in world affairs. This rubbish government only makes a complete horlicks of it anyway.
It's about time they faced up to the fact that these days we are little more than a third world country.
we all know he really works as a trolley attendant in real life.Anyway - we should scrap this expensive waste of money and stop trying and failing to punch above our weight in world affairs. This rubbish government only makes a complete horlicks of it anyway.
It's about time they faced up to the fact that these days we are little more than a third world country.
03 December 2006, 07:27 PM
#49
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Notts, UK
Posts: 4,935
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well a guy who works for a well known electrical engineering firm visits us once a year.
The rest of the year he works on main motor drives and switchgear on cruise liners and war ships.
He's sharp as a pin, does 12hour shifts and is 74!!!
Not sure of Pete's real age but I know his background.
Lets have a UK system but let the engineers do their work without politicians, accountants and the rest of the no-jobs sticking their nose in.
Cheers
Lee
The rest of the year he works on main motor drives and switchgear on cruise liners and war ships.
He's sharp as a pin, does 12hour shifts and is 74!!!
Not sure of Pete's real age but I know his background.
Lets have a UK system but let the engineers do their work without politicians, accountants and the rest of the no-jobs sticking their nose in.
Cheers
Lee
03 December 2006, 07:33 PM
#50
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by Spring Heeled Jack
usual bollox, bollox, bollox
03 December 2006, 07:33 PM
#51
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by logiclee
Well a guy who works for a well known electrical engineering firm visits us once a year.
The rest of the year he works on main motor drives and switchgear on cruise liners and war ships.
He's sharp as a pin, does 12hour shifts and is 74!!!
Not sure of Pete's real age but I know his background.
Lets have a UK system but let the engineers do their work without politicians, accountants and the rest of the no-jobs sticking their nose in.
Cheers
Lee
The rest of the year he works on main motor drives and switchgear on cruise liners and war ships.
He's sharp as a pin, does 12hour shifts and is 74!!!
Not sure of Pete's real age but I know his background.
Lets have a UK system but let the engineers do their work without politicians, accountants and the rest of the no-jobs sticking their nose in.
Cheers
Lee
04 December 2006, 01:12 PM
#53
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: West Yorks.
Posts: 4,130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since we only have 16 nukes based on 4 submarines there seems little point in developing our own. Trident was bought-in from the US, so the next one probably will be as well. It's unlikely the UK will mount a single-handed nuclear attack without the approval of the US, so its highly likely the system will be sourced from the US.
The poll doesn't give the option for buying the warheads in and developing our own delivery system though, maybe that's worth considering ?
The poll doesn't give the option for buying the warheads in and developing our own delivery system though, maybe that's worth considering ?
04 December 2006, 01:59 PM
#54
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by MJW
Since we only have 16 nukes based on 4 submarines there seems little point in developing our own. Trident was bought-in from the US, so the next one probably will be as well. It's unlikely the UK will mount a single-handed nuclear attack without the approval of the US, so its highly likely the system will be sourced from the US.
The poll doesn't give the option for buying the warheads in and developing our own delivery system though, maybe that's worth considering ?
The poll doesn't give the option for buying the warheads in and developing our own delivery system though, maybe that's worth considering ?
Last edited by Nat; 04 December 2006 at 02:01 PM.
04 December 2006, 02:05 PM
#55
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Worthing..
Posts: 7,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by MJW
It's unlikely the UK will mount a single-handed nuclear attack without the approval of the US, .
Of course whether this would be carried over into any future programme is debateable, given our lapdog stance with the US.
04 December 2006, 02:08 PM
#56
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Worthing..
Posts: 7,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Nat21
with upto 12 warheads on each missile although they don't all have that many on.
04 December 2006, 02:18 PM
#57
Scooby Regular
Originally Posted by pslewis
we have the best Designers and Engineers in the world. It's the project managers which mess the whole lot up (they want it yesterday, finance want it for $5:99 and together they ensure it is 5 years late and costs £££££££'s more than it should!)
However we have a track record of making ground breaking technology and then binning it the moment it works. Concorde, Blue Streak Maglev trains.. the list goes on and on, now all of those projects have R&D thats decades old and cost a fortune at the time and would subsequently have been worth billions commercially. But we just left them at the working phase.
04 December 2006, 02:20 PM
#58
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: never the same place twice
Posts: 3,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
take it from someone who sed to make parts for such systems.
BAE is the UK main weapons manufacture and they are currently downsizing. The future is bleek due to the cos of the work to be don in the UK Vs the cost of purchasing else where.
Many parts for the UK's answer to the cruise missile, STORM SHODOW are french
many parts such as shell casings are sub contractred to africa..... i could go on.
Highly unlikely that they will create a significant amount of job here in the UK. Though it would be nice to see the jobs in the UK, engineering is on a steady decline and has been for years
BAE is the UK main weapons manufacture and they are currently downsizing. The future is bleek due to the cos of the work to be don in the UK Vs the cost of purchasing else where.
Many parts for the UK's answer to the cruise missile, STORM SHODOW are french
many parts such as shell casings are sub contractred to africa..... i could go on.
Highly unlikely that they will create a significant amount of job here in the UK. Though it would be nice to see the jobs in the UK, engineering is on a steady decline and has been for years
04 December 2006, 02:24 PM
#59
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by PeteBrant
It's limited to 3 warheads after the strategic review in 1998, stating we should have no more than 48 warheads per sub.
04 December 2006, 02:30 PM
#60
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Worthing..
Posts: 7,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Nat21
I thought that meant some missiles would carry more e.g 6 or 8 while others would carry less, e.g. 1 which would allow Trident to fufill the sub-strategic role that the now retired WE177 freefall bomb used to.
BBC NEWS | UK | Fact file: Trident missile
Originally Posted by BBC
Each Trident missile is designed to carry up to 12 nuclear warheads, but the Royal Navy's are armed with three after the 1998 Strategic Defence Review imposed a limit of 48 per submarine.
Whether this information is accurate or not I don't know.