The decision to replace Trident submarines is highly premature, say US experts

 

Summary

The projected service life of the US Ohio-class Trident submarines, built in Groton, Connecticut, is about 44 years.  The 14 US submarines currently in service, which were built in the 1980s and 1990s, are due to be retired between 2029 and 2042, when the Trident D5 missiles they launch are also due to be taken out of service.

 

But, according to the Government’s White Paper [1], the original design life of the UK Vanguard-class Trident submarines, built in Barrow-in-Furness, was only 25 years, but it may be possible to extend this to 30 years of service life.  As a result, the 4 UK submarines currently in service, which were built in the 1990s, are due to be retired between 2022 and 2028, that is, before any of the US submarines.

 

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 UK could do the same. …

 

“[T]he US Tridents spend approximately two thirds of their lives at sea with two crews for each submarine while the UK requires that only one out of four of its Tridents be at sea at any time. The lower usage rate of the UK Tridents might be expected to increase their life expectancy relative to the US Tridents.” (Paragraphs 1 and 2)

 

In evidence to the Committee on 23 January 2007, Professor Garwin said:

 

“… we believe … decision to replace the submarines is highly premature.”

 

No US second generation

This prompts the question: does the UK really need a second generation of Trident submarines?

 

The US has no plans to build a second generation of Trident submarines.  It plans to replace the Trident system as a whole, that is, missiles and the submarine launch platforms, and to have the new system operational by the time the oldest US Trident submarine is retired around 2029.  From then until 2042, when the service life of the Trident D5 missiles is due to end, the US plans to operate both systems, phasing out Trident as the service life of its Trident submarines expires and new submarines are built to launch the new missiles.

 

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 UK submarines is 30 years.  Because of the lower standard, and much shorter life, of the British-built Trident submarines, Britain must build a second generation of Trident submarines to enter service from 2024 onwards, submarines that may have to be modified later to launch the new US missiles, since, after 2042, there may be no serviceable Trident D5 missiles for them to use.

 

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 Britain to build nuclear-powered submarines.  There’s a hint in the White Paper that one reason for taking a decision now is that BAE will be in need of submarine design work soon, otherwise its submarine design team may disperse.

 

Design work is coming to an end on the Astute-class nuclear-powered conventionally-armed submarines being built for the Royal Navy at Barrow-in-Furness, the first of which is nearing completion (over 3 years late).  The White Paper says:

 

“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 Britain, and BAE own the only capacity in Britain at the moment.  While its Barrow-in-Furness shipyard will be occupied for the next 10 years or more building Astute-class submarines, design work on the Astute is coming to an end, as the White Paper says.

 

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 Britain.  That would make an impression on Blair, as a believer that Britain has been ordained by God to engage in continuous “warfighting” in this world.  What is more, a decision to maintain Trident for a further 30 or 40 years would finally put to bed the Labour Party’s unilateralist past – and he would be more than happy to have that as part of his legacy.

 

 

***   ***   ***   ***   ***

 

 

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 UK submarines.)

 

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 UK could do the same. …

 

“[T]he US Tridents spend approximately two thirds of their lives at sea with two crews for each submarine while the UK requires that only one out of four of its Tridents be at sea at any time. The lower usage rate of the UK Tridents might be expected to increase their life expectancy relative to the US Tridents.” (Paragraphs 1 and 2)

 

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 UK submarines about one quarter of the time at sea. The lifetime of the US submarines has been extended to 45 years and, by the same token, the ratio of two thirds to one quarter is two and two thirds, so I would expect the UK submarines, from quite a few wear-outs, would last 100 years. I see no reason why they should not last 45 years and, from my experience with defence programmes in the United States, I think the Government is hastening into this decision before the facts are really available to it or to Parliament.”

 

Giving evidence to the Committee on 6 February 2007 [6], Admiral Mathews from the Ministry of Defence contradicted Garwin’s claim that UK submarines spent about 25 per cent of their time at sea.  Taking into account testing and change over between patrols, he said the actual time was “in excess of 50%”, which he claimed is “pretty comparable with the US Ohio class” submarines - which spend two thirds of their time at sea.  In fact, it’s not “pretty comparable”: it is 25% less.

 

This was a strange point for the Admiral to make since he admits that the UK submarines spend less time at sea than their US counterparts, and could therefore be expected to have a longer service life, not 50% less.

 

(The Admiral made another strange point: he said that “Ohio started off with a more modern design”.  I don’t know what he meant by this.  But, it prompts the question: how can the American Ohio class of submarine, the first of which was launched in 1979, have “a more modern design” that the British Vanguard class, the first of which was launched in 1992?)

 

UK life extension

The White Paper did raise the question of extending the life of the UK submarines, saying:

 

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 US replacement

Unlike the UK, the US has no need to replace its Trident submarines, even though the bulk of them are older than the UK’s.  The oldest of its Trident fleet of 14 submarines was launched in 1983 and the youngest in 1996 (see, for example, [7]).  (4 older Ohio-class submarines were converted to fire conventionally armed cruise missiles).  So with an expected 46-year life from launch the Trident submarines are scheduled to be retired in the years 2029 to 2042.  This matches the expected life of the Trident missiles they fire, which, after a life-extension programme, are expected to be serviceable up to 2042.

 

By contrast, the oldest of the UK’s fleet of 4 submarines was launched in 1992 and the youngest in 1998.  So with an expected 30-year life from launch they are scheduled to be retired in the years 2022 to 2028, before any of the US fleet is retired.  This doesn’t fit with the expected life of the Trident missiles and means that the second generation of UK Trident submarines, which should be serviceable into the 2050s, may not have serviceable missiles to launch after 2042 (of which more later).

 

The US intends to replace the whole Trident system, missiles and submarines, with another submarine-launched ballistic missile system and to have the replacement system operational by 2029, when their oldest Trident submarine is scheduled to be retired.  This was set out in the Nuclear Posture Review submitted to Congress by the Defense Department on 31 December 2001, extracts of which are available at [8] (see Annex A).

 

One doesn’t need any expertise to work out that, if the UK is to retain a submarine-launched nuclear weapons system, it would be preferable to have the Trident replacement system that is due to be available by around 2029.  If a new generation of UK submarines was built to launch the new US missile, with the first operational in 2029 as the US plans for its new fleet, then the uncertainty about the availability of serviceable missiles after 2042 would be avoided.

 

If the existing UK submarines had a 46-year service life from launch like the US submarines (retiring from 2038 to 2044 rather than from 2022 to 2028), then obviously the UK would opt to have the Trident replacement system.   But an extra 5 years or so on the life of the existing UK fleet, so that they are retired from 2027 to 2033, would be sufficient to allow this to happen.

 

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 UK’s purpose.  The White Paper proposals will mean that the UK will be committed to the use of these oversized missiles at least until 2042, and perhaps for many more years after that.

 

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 UK missiles are fitted with a single warhead and some with considerably more than the average of 3. Because of the enormous evolution in computer technology and the miniaturization of guidance systems, there is the opportunity to use small, single-warhead missiles of range comparable with the Trident D-5, but those missiles would need to be developed, together with a potential suite of appropriate countermeasures to ballistic-missile defense systems. A resulting major benefit would be the much smaller strategic submarine that could be operated by the much smaller crew enabled by modern information technology; the UK could consider a fleet of 6-8 such submarines that would permit keeping two at sea at all times.”

 

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 US that “any successor to the [Trident] D5 should be compatible, or can be made compatible, with the launch system” of the new UK submarines.

 

This assurance (and others) is set out in an exchange of letters between the UK Prime Minister and the US President.  These letters (dated 7 December 2006) are now available on the Downing Street website at [9] and [10].  Blair’s letter to Bush states:

 

“We believe that there would be merit in the United Kingdom having the opportunity to participate, at an early stage, in any programme to replace the D5 missiles, or to discuss a further life extension – for UK purposes – of the D5 missiles, to match the potential out of service date of our new submarines.”

 

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 UK - but not the US - will be using D5 missiles well into the 2050s.  This would be an odd arrangement since it means that the US would have to maintain facilities at Kings Bay, Georgia, to service D5 missiles for many years after it ceased using them.

 

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   US Trident replacement system

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