The decision to replace Trident submarines is highly
premature, say US experts
Summary
The projected service
life of the
But, according to the
Government’s White Paper [1], the original design life
of the
The British submarines
spend a much smaller proportion of their life at sea. So, other things being equal, one would
expect them to have a longer service life than their American equivalents. However, if the White Paper is to be
believed, the most one can expect from them is a service life that is around 50%
less.
This proposition
that the UK Trident submarines can be operated for a maximum of 30 years is the
fundamental assumption in the White Paper.
From it, the Government concludes that replacement submarines must be
built to enter service from 2024 onwards.
A second
major assumption in the White Paper is that it will take 17 years to design and
build a second generation of Trident submarines (to do the same job as the
first generation). Hence, the Government
concludes that a decision must be made in 2007 to build a second generation and
to start design work.
The moral of
this story is “buy American”. Had the UK
bought Ohio-class submarines from the US, instead of building Vanguard-class
submarines in the 1990s, then the oldest submarines would have been serviceable
to around 2038 – and a UK decision about replacement would not be necessary until
well into the 2020s, instead of in 2007.
Of course,
buying American submarines was (and is) politically impossible, since, if both
missiles and submarines were made in the USA, it would be next to impossible to
maintain the fiction that Britain has an “independent” nuclear deterrent.
Assumption questioned
In a recent submission
to the Defense Select Committee, four eminent American scientists (Professors Richard L
Garwin, Philip E Coyle, Theodore A Postol and Frank von Hippel), with long
experience in US military procurement, have questioned the Government’s
assumption that 30 years is the maximum service life of the UK submarines. They say [2]:
“In this Comment we
explain why we believe it likely that the Vanguard-class submarines can safely
and economically be operated for 40-45 years rather than 30. …
“Given that the service
lives of US Trident submarines were extended in 1998 from 30 to 44 years, one
obvious question is whether the
“[T]he US Tridents spend
approximately two thirds of their lives at sea with two crews for each
submarine while the
In evidence to the Committee on 23
January 2007, Professor Garwin said:
“… we
believe … decision to replace the submarines is highly premature.”
No
This prompts
the question: does the
The
If the service life of the
existing UK Trident submarines could be extended further, as Garwin et al
suggest may be possible, so that the oldest is retired in 2029 (like the oldest
US submarine) rather than 2022 (as projected in the White Paper) the possibility
would open up of the UK emulating the US and phasing in the use of the new US
missiles and new UK submarine launch platforms from 2029 onwards.
But that’s impossible –
the White Paper says the maximum life of the
BAE the builder
If a second generation of
UK Trident submarines is ordered, they will be built in the Barrow-in-Furness
shipyard owned by BAE Systems, since there is nowhere else in
Design work
is coming to an end on the Astute-class nuclear-powered conventionally-armed
submarines being built for the Royal Navy at
“There are
... risks that, in the event of a significant gap between the end of design
work on the Astute-class conventional role nuclear submarines and the start of
detailed design work on new SSBNs [submarines], some of the difficulties
experienced on the Astute programme would be repeated because of the loss of
key design skills.” (Paragraph 1-6)
Could it be that the
Government has succumbed to pressure from BAE Systems to take a decision
now? It’s not as outlandish a
proposition as it seems at first sight. The
British state has an interest in maintaining a capacity to build
nuclear-powered submarines in
Suppose BAE went to see
Prime Minister Blair and told him that unless it got submarine design work
soon, the Astute would be last nuclear-powered submarine designed and built in
*** ***
*** *** ***
White Paper case
The White Paper’s case
for taking a decision in 2007 to build a second generation of UK Trident
submarines begins as follows:
“The first
of four Royal Navy Vanguard-class ballistic missile submarines (or SSBNs),
which carry the Trident D5 missile, was launched in 1992 and the class had an
original design life of 25 years.” (Paragraph 1-3)
But the
White Paper goes on to say:
“… it should
be possible to extend the life of the submarines by around five years.
Accordingly, the first submarine would be going out of service around 2022 and
the second around 2024. Continuous deterrent patrols could no longer be assured
from around this latter point if no replacement were in place by then.”
(Paragraph 1-3)
On this
basis, the Government asserts that the first of 3 or 4 replacement submarines
must be operational by 2024 – and since:
“A
reasonable estimate is that it might take around 17 years from the initiation
of detailed concept work to achieve the first operational patrol.” (Paragraph
1-7)
a decision
needs to be taken about replacement in 2007.
17 years is
an extraordinarily long time to design and build a submarine to do the same job
as the existing Vanguard class. If a
second generation of Trident submarines is necessary, why not build more
Vanguard class, with minor modifications, which would surely take a lot less
time?
Service life was 30 years
It should be
emphasised that prior to January 2006, the service life of UK Trident
submarines was assumed to be 30 years.
That’s what it says in the 1998 Strategic Defence Review [3],
which gives a table of annual operating costs “averaged over
30-year life of Trident”. Furthermore,
the Review announced that the UK "will have only one submarine on
patrol at a time", which significantly reduced the time at sea for each
submarine and therefore could be expected to increase its service life above 30
years.
However,
Ministry of Defence evidence to the Commons Defence Select Committee in January
2006 reduced the service life to 25 years, albeit with the possibility of some
extension. The evidence states [4]:
“HMS VANGUARD [The first Trident submarine] entered
operational service with the Royal Navy in 1994, with the other three submarines
in its class following in 1995, 1998 and 2001. The submarines were procured
with a designed operational life of 25 years and on this basis, they would
start to be withdrawn from service late in the next decade.”
The evidence went on to suggest that HMS Vanguard
might be able to operate “out to the mid-2020s”, which, with the 17-year design
and build time prescribed in the White Paper, would have meant that a decision about
replacement wouldn’t need to be taken until about 2009.
In this
evidence, the service life of HMS Vanguard is measured from when it made its
first operational patrol in 1994, giving it a retirement date around 2019,
without life extension. In the White
Paper of December 2006, however, its service life is measured from 1992 when it
was launched (see above) giving it a retirement date of 2017. So the 5-year extension projected in the
White Paper, which takes its retirement date to 2022, amounts to about 3 years
in reality.
The White
Paper offers no explanation for this change in baseline compared with the
Ministry of Defence evidence to the Defence Select Committee less than a year
earlier. Any connection between HMS
Vanguard’s retirement date being brought forward by 2 years in 2006 and the
Prime Minister’s retirement date being brought forward by a similar period in
2006 is purely speculative.
The baseline
for the 44-year service life quoted for a US Trident submarine is not its
launch date, but the date of its first operational patrol. Thus the oldest US Trident submarine, the USS
Henry M Jackson, was launched in 1983 (9 years before the oldest UK Trident
submarine, HMS Vanguard) and is scheduled to be retired in 2029 (7 years after
HMS Vanguard). In other words, using the
White Paper baseline, the service life of the American-built submarines is 46
years, compared with only 30 years for the British.
Garwin,
Coyle, Postol & von Hippel
The Defense Select Committee is
holding an inquiry into the White Paper proposals, and is due to report before
the House of Commons debates the proposals in March. As I mentioned above, the Government’s
assertion that the service life of the UK Trident submarines cannot be extended beyond
30 years has been questioned in a submission to the Committee by four eminent American
scientists (Professors Richard L Garwin, Philip E Coyle, Theodore A Postol and
Frank von Hippel), who have long experience in US military procurement. Professor Garwin also gave oral evidence to
the Committee on 23 January 2007.
(Labour MP, Peter Kilfoyle, seems to
have been responsible for their interest.
When the Prime Minister made his statement on Trident replacement to the
House of Commons on 4 December 2007, Peter Kilfoyle quoted Theodore Postol on
the service life extension of US submarines to over 40 years, and suggested
that a similar life extension programme might be possible on
In their submission, the four
American scientists write [2]:
“In this Comment we
explain why we believe it likely that the Vanguard-class submarines can safely
and economically be operated for 40-45 years rather than 30. …
“Given that the service
lives of US Trident submarines were extended in 1998 from 30 to 44 years, one
obvious question is whether the
“[T]he US Tridents spend
approximately two thirds of their lives at sea with two crews for each
submarine while the
When Garwin
appeared before the Defence Select Committee on 23 January 2007, he expanded
upon this [5]:
“The written
evidence that I and my colleagues have provided deals mostly with the narrow
question of maintaining the UK's strategic nuclear force in the post-Cold War
world and, for that, we believe … decision to replace the submarines is highly
premature.
“The US
Trident submarines operate two thirds of the time at sea and the
Giving
evidence to the Committee on 6 February 2007 [6],
Admiral Mathews from the Ministry of Defence contradicted Garwin’s claim that
This was a
strange point for the Admiral to make since he admits that the
(The Admiral
made another strange point: he said that “
The White
Paper did raise the question of extending the life of the
“We have undertaken
detailed work to assess the scope for extending the life of those submarines.
Our ability to achieve this is limited because some major components on the
submarines – including the steam generators, other elements of the nuclear
propulsion system and some non-nuclear support systems – were only designed for
a 25-year life.” (Paragraph 1-3)
and concludes that “it should be
possible to extend the life of the submarines by around five years” to 30 years
from launch, that is, well short of the 46 years from launch of the US
submarines.
In their submission, Garwin and his
colleagues comment:
“In particular, replacing
the steam generators and other limited life components should not be casually
dismissed as an option if it would allow a ten to fifteen-year extension of the
UK Trident submarine service lives and a corresponding deferral of the
replacement decision. It is a routine if major operation to replace steam
generators in civilian nuclear power plants. A proper evaluation should be made
of the cost of access through the Trident hulls and replacement of their steam
generators, if that is required.” (Paragraph 5)
“As for the ‘other
elements of the nuclear propulsion system and some non-nuclear support systems
… only designed for a 25-year life’ …, these are surely replaceable in case
surveillance shows the need to do so, and it is only a matter of
cost-to-replace compared with the proposed program for replacement of the fleet
itself.” (Paragraph 19)
“More
fundamentally, we are skeptical that the submarines ‘were only designed for a 25-year life’.
More likely, they have a ‘minimum design life’ of 25 years and are likely to be
operable for a much longer time.” (Paragraph 4)
“In systems
designed conservatively to ensure a minimum life of 25 years, it is common to
find from experience that the system or component can be operated safely for a
much longer time. Often it is the advent of smaller, cheaper options that cause
the scrapping of equipment, as is certainly the case with computers. Here,
however, the replacement would carry the same large missiles and fulfill the
same mission, so that the benefits of newer technology are minimal—or at least
unstated in the White Paper. Certainly, a much more detailed consideration of
the options than is offered in the … White Paper would be required to make a
judgment between a life-extension program and a program for building new
submarines.” (Paragraph 18)
The
submission gives several examples of weapons systems whose design life was
greatly exceeded in practice after appropriate life extension work was done on
them. For example, in the 1960s, it was
thought that the B52 could not operate much beyond the 1970s, chiefly because of
metal fatigue in its wings, but it is still operating today as a
result of life extension programmes.
No
Unlike the
By contrast,
the oldest of the
The
One doesn’t need any expertise
to work out that, if the
If the existing
Trident oversized
Trident missiles are
capable of carrying 12 independently targeted nuclear warheads. However, since the Strategic Defence Review
in 1998, the maximum number of warheads per submarine has been 48, that is, on
average 3 for each of the 16 missiles on a submarine. In other words, the Trident missiles are
greatly oversized for the
Professor Garwin and his
colleagues addressed this point in their submission:
“The Trident D-5 missile
is greatly oversized for its current loading that averages 3 warheads for a
missile that can accommodate 12 and in US SLBMs [missiles] the average is now
down to 6. To permit the delivery of a single warhead, it is likely that some
of the
Trident D5 after 2042?
Assuming the White Paper
proposals go ahead, and a second generation of Trident submarines is built,
what happens after 2042 when the missile service life is due to come to an end,
but there are 10 or 15 years of service life left in the submarines? The White Paper (Paragraph 7-6) acknowledged
that this presented a problem, but stated that the Government has received an
assurance from the
This assurance (and
others) is set out in an exchange of letters between the UK Prime Minister and
the
“We believe that there
would be merit in the
The possibility that the
life of the D5 missiles be further extended beyond 2042 is new – it wasn’t
mentioned in the White Paper published a few days earlier. If this bears fruit, the
Further life extension?
The White Paper, which
was published in December 2006, is fairly definite that 30 years is the maximum
service life of the present Trident submarines.
It says:
“Any further extension of
the life of the submarines would mean that the key components described
previously would need to be replaced or refurbished, and this would require a
major refit of the submarines. This would not extend the lives of the
submarines much further and would not therefore be cost effective.” (Paragraph
1-4)
But in a memorandum to
the Defence Select Committee a month or so later, the Ministry of Defence held
out the possibility of further life extension [11]:
“As was made clear in the
White Paper, we do not at this stage completely rule out further life extension
of the Vanguard-class. The key point is that on current evidence it is highly
likely to represent poor value for money. Moreover, there is also serious
concern as to whether it will be technically feasible. The position will be
kept under review at each key stage of the programme to design and build the
replacement submarines. But given the severe uncertainties associated with life
extension beyond the 30 year point, it would be grossly irresponsible not to
start concept and assessment work in time to ensure we can field replacement
submarines when the Vanguard-class reaches the 30-year point.”
Could it be that, while
BAE Systems may get initial design work on a second generation of Trident
submarines, they may never be built?
Annex A
The following is an
extract from the Nuclear Posture Review,
submitted to the US Congress by the Defense Department on 31 December 2001 [8],
about a Trident replacement system, that is, missiles (SLBMs: submarine-launched
ballistic missiles) and submarines (SSBNs: Sub-Surface Ballistic
Nuclear-powered).
(Note that SSN stands for
Sub-Surface Nuclear, that is, a nuclear-powered conventionally-armed submarine.)
"Follow-on [replacement]
SSBN: ... DoD [Department of Defense] assumes the continued requirement for a
sea-based strategic nuclear force. Therefore, the timeframe when the next
generation SSBN will need to be deployed is about 2029 when the first of the
remaining operational Trident SSBNs is planned to be retired. The Navy is
currently studying two options for future follow-on SSBNs: (1) a variant of
Virginia-class nuclear attack submarines (SSN); and (2) a dedicated SSBN
(either a new design or a derivative of the Trident SSBN) ... If the decision
is made to develop a new dedicated SSBN, a program would have to be initiated
around 2016 to ensure that a new platform is available in 2029." (p. 42)
"Follow-on [replacement]
SLBM. A new SLBM would be needed in about 2029 to match the schedule for a
follow-on SSBN. The Navy has begun studies to examine range-payload
requirements and missile size, but no specific plans for a follow-on SLBM at
this point other than extending the service life of the Trident D-5 [to 2042]."
(p. 42)
David Morrison
23 February 2007
Labour & Trade Union Review
www.david-morrison.org.uk
References:
[1] See www.mod.uk
[2] www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmdfence/ucwhite/ucm202.htm
[3] See www.mod.uk
[4] www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmdfence/835/835.pdf
[5] www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmdfence/uc225-ii/uc22502.htm
[6] www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmdfence/uc225-iv/uc22502.htm
[7] www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/slbm/ssbn-726.htm
[8] www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/slbm/ssbn-726.htm
[9] www.pm.gov.uk/files/pdf/letter_Bush.pdf
[10] www.pm.gov.uk/files/pdf/letter_Blair.pdf
[11] www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmdfence/uc225-iv/uc225m02.htm