Global Security Newswire

The British Vanguard-class submarine HMS Vigilant. A government plan for replacing each of the United Kingdom’s Trident ballistic missile-armed submarines offers the most cost-efficient means for meeting the nation’s need for continuous sea-based nuclear deterrence, the nation’s defense secretary said on Wednesday (Royal Navy photo).

WASHINGTON --  British Defense Secretary Philip Hammond on Wednesday said a plan to renew aging Trident ballistic missile submarines offers the most cost-efficient means for meeting his country’s need for continuous sea-based nuclear deterrence (see GSN, June 18).

The ruling Conservative Party is backing a like-for-like nuclear modernization plan that would -- based on different estimates -- cost upward of  $39 billion to field replacements for the nation’s fleet of four Vanguard-class vessels slated for retirement in the 2020s.

Hammond and other Conservatives argue the like-for-like plan is needed to meet the requirements of having at least one nuclear-armed submarine on patrol at all times.

“We believe that is going to be the most cost-effective way of delivering the deterrent effect that we need,” the defense secretary, speaking at a Center for a New American Security-sponsored luncheon, said of the British capacity to ward of acts of aggression.

The Trident renewal plan is opposed by the Conservative Party’s junior governing coalition partner, the Liberal Democrats, who argue it is too costly and likely unnecessary in today’s post-Cold War security climate.

The Liberal Democrats have pushed for and will receive a new Defense Ministry assessment of possible alternatives to the plan that could include a new fleet of only three Vanguard-class submarines or a switch to using nuclear-capable cruise missiles carried by existing Astute-class submarines.

“Our junior coalition partners …  have expressed a wish to explore one more time whether there is another way of delivering continuous at sea-deterrence other than replacing [the Trident missile-equipped Vanguard submarines] focusing particularly on nuclear cruise [missiles] as an option,” Hammond said.

Backers of the Astute submarine option argue it would save billions of dollars over the existing plan and that a cruise missile-armed vessel could put to sea in as little as a week in the event of an international crisis, according to a Thursday issue analysis by the London Independent.

Hammond said he anticipated the Defense Ministry review would be finished toward the end of the year and that it would show “we cannot get the same deterrent effect at a lower cost by using any technology other than Trident."

The Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties have agreed to put off a final decision on implementing the Vanguard replacement plan until 2016 when general elections have passed. Despite this, the government has authorized billions of dollars in preliminary contracts so that the new vessels can be built according to schedule if the final go-ahead is granted. 

“We’ve placed about 4 billion pounds [nearly $6.3 billion] worth of orders so far for the design and development” of the new submarines, Hammond told attendees at the Washington luncheon.

The opposition Labor Party, which introduced the Trident renewal plan when it was in power, later suggested more questions on the project. Labor Party leader Ed Miliband in September 2010 remarks quoted by the Independent said his party needed “to look very carefully at whether renewing Trident is the necessary or the right thing to do.”

Hammond voiced confidence, though, that an ultimate determination would be made on “maintaining a continuous at sea nuclear deterrent. The question is only around what we actually need in order to deliver.”

“We are very clear about our commitment to the program but as we move to a generation of nuclear submarines that will not need a midlife refueling cycle there is a question about how many boats are required at the minimum to maintain a continuous at sea-deterrence,” he said.

Amid the political debate on the future form of the United Kingdom’s nuclear deterrent, there is also the looming matter of possible Scottish secession and an independent government coming to power in Edinburgh that orders all British nuclear weapons and carrier platforms off its territory.

At present, the country’s Trident ballistic missiles and nuclear warheads are stored at the Coulport depot and the four Vanguard-class submarines are based at the nearby Faslane naval station. The fiercely antinuclear governing Scottish National Party is calling for a regional vote as soon as 2014 on withdrawing from the United Kingdom.

London opposes Scottish secession and wants to keep its nuclear weapons where they are as there are no other U.K. facilities at present that could take over the nuclear mission. 

The British government has been criticized by Parliament for not devising adequate contingency plans to respond to a potentially independent Scotland that insists on the removal of all nuclear weapons (see GSN, July 12).

In a bid to bolster local support for secession, SNP leaders have called for their party to reverse its longstanding opposition to NATO membership. They argue that an independent Scotland would inherit membership in the nuclear alliance (see GSN, July 17).

“Times change. Circumstances change,” said SNP chief and First Minister Alex Salmond at a Wednesday press conference announcing the proposed policy change. “The resolution sets out a very carefully positioned statement which shows a willingness to cooperate with our friends and allies but makes clear that the non-nuclear position of the SNP is paramount,” the London Daily Telegraph quoted him as saying.