Military Review

UK not able to upgrade nuclear shield


An identical replacement of the British nuclear deterrence system with a new one is an impossible task for material reasons, says Danny Alexander, First Deputy Minister of Finance of Great Britain, for the first time.

Besides, there is no need for this, the State Minister is sure, since there are “reliable and solid alternatives” to the current system, the basis of which is based on submarine-based Trident ballistic missiles.

In an interview with the British newspaper The Guardian, Alexander emphasized that the state treasury of the United Kingdom in the foreseeable future is simply not able to secure the construction of a new underwater fleetsufficient to accommodate the current number of nuclear missiles. This fact, he noted, must be recognized and based on it when planning the modernization of the national "nuclear shield."

“Given the financial pressure that is now being felt throughout the public sector, and all the tasks that the government needs to perform and pay for, as well as taking into account problems in other areas, I find it financially unrealistic that we can somehow form a multi-billion dollar fund to pay for this replacement, ”said Alexander.

The UK nuclear fleet - four Vanguard class submarines with Trident missiles on board - will have spent their technical resources by the middle of the 2020s. Without replacing outdated submarines with an equal or slightly smaller number of new - Class "Compressor" - the United Kingdom can lose its "nuclear shield" in 20 in years if it does not abandon the sea-based ballistic missiles. The current coalition government of the country, headed by Prime Minister David Cameron, reaffirmed in principle its commitment to the sea-based national nuclear deterrence system, but the final decision on this issue was postponed until 2016, for the period after the next parliamentary elections in the country, ITAR reports -TASS

Prior to this deadline, it was decided to conduct a thorough analysis of various options for modernizing the Trident system, taking into account the fact that the construction of even three Successors and the deployment of nuclear weapons may require up to 100 billion lbs. of article (160 billion dollars), and then also on 3 billion lbs. of art. on their annual maintenance. The conduct of such a comprehensive analysis was entrusted to Nika Harvey, former state minister for armed affairs. And after he left this post in September of 2012, the mission of continuing the analysis was entrusted to Alexander, who for the first time in this capacity stated his position on this crucial issue for the country's security in an interview with the Guardian.

“We are in a position where the costs of the subsequent (modernized) system will have to be paid from the budget of the Ministry of Defense,” he said. “And we have no magic pot of money from which we could draw funds beyond this budget.” We, as a government, have always clearly stated this. At least, this was done by me and the Minister of Finance ”.

Alexander made it clear that in the prevailing material conditions, Britain has no other way to save its “nuclear shield”, except to find an acceptable alternative to the existing Trident system. He refrained from specifying options on the grounds that until the completion of the analysis, this information is a state secret.

“We need to see if there are other replacement ways that would be more cost effective,” he said. - For the first time in a long time, we asked ourselves these questions. We really need to ask these important questions regarding our position. Is it really necessary in the XXI century on a daily basis, 7 days a week, 12 months in a year to keep submarines on duty in the sea? All this requires careful analysis and consideration with the presentation of alternatives. ”

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site:

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. erased
    erased 25 January 2013 13: 31
    Missiles are being rented by the Yankees. All the same, the States cover them when profitable.
    1. nagi
      nagi 25 January 2013 21: 58
      Everything can be profitable for the time being. It’s like with NATO. One fine day, the US will say that they are leaving the bloc and what will the other participants do? This is the dilemma of Europe. Entrusting the holders of the printing press is very risky, but not trusting money; there is no army to support.
      1. crazyrom
        crazyrom 25 January 2013 23: 47
        Hehehe have sunk, [former] mistress of the seas am 3 submarines can't build ...
  2. SSR
    SSR 25 January 2013 13: 32
    Who are you? come on ... goodbye! it's time to remove the Great prefix ... it's time to just be called simply England .. and that's it. hi
    Well, the region is just Small Britain.
  3. Mr. Truth
    Mr. Truth 25 January 2013 13: 32
    6 tank battalions. Here is their level.
  4. lvn321
    lvn321 25 January 2013 13: 35
    That's right, happy. This is buzzing. This is even a buzz.
  5. Senzey
    Senzey 25 January 2013 13: 35
  6. Svarog
    Svarog 25 January 2013 13: 37
    Even Great Britain should remember that without nuclear weapons, some people might want to "democratize" it. and then they already decided to leave the "EU" reservation hi
    1. Antikylller
      Antikylller 25 January 2013 13: 43
      Quote: Svarog
      some people may want to "democratize" it. and then they already decided to leave the "EU" reservation

      That the EU and democratize in full that would not stand out
  7. barbell
    barbell 25 January 2013 13: 51
    Britain has long been unable to do anything. abilities left for the celebration and praise of the old queen, and the tender ass emotion of the moron prince Gavrika.
  8. FID
    FID 25 January 2013 14: 16
    Strange aerodynamics (contours) at the submarine in the title picture, very strange.
    1. avt
      avt 25 January 2013 14: 43
      Quote: SSI
      Strange aerodynamics (contours) at the submarine in the title picture, very strange

      And they are generally cool guys in this regard, their planes, with rare exceptions, you can’t confuse anyone even after a liter! laughing Especially 2nd World, Lancaster just inserts! laughing
      1. Wedmak
        Wedmak 25 January 2013 18: 43
        Well, about aircraft you are in vain. Look at the spitfire. For me it’s a pretty beautiful car.

    2. Jin
      Jin 25 January 2013 15: 13
      Quote: SSI
      Strange aerodynamics (contours) at the submarine in the title picture, very strange.

      By the way, this is their newest boat, HMS Astute. At first I was also surprised
    3. Wedmak
      Wedmak 25 January 2013 19: 04
      Actually not strange, but completely subordinate to hydrodynamics. In the above-water position (the water resistance is greater than in the underwater position, due to vortices on the surface) the rudders of the depth are above the water surface and do not create additional resistance.
    4. barbell
      barbell 25 January 2013 19: 41
      and the bald emelya Emelya, with a charming princess, will hug you, and probably will be identified in London, in buckingham.
    TSOOBER 25 January 2013 14: 19
    construction of three "saxesors" -100 billion pounds - each boat is about $ 60 million - that's where denyushku is sawed! Serdyukov is resting!
    1. basal
      basal 25 January 2013 18: 14
      Yeah, and even a billion a year for the maintenance of each boat!

      Gentlemen have no corruption at all! wassat
    2. patsantre
      patsantre 25 January 2013 22: 19
      And it didn’t occur to you that the figure was taken from the ceiling? 60 billion are spent on the whole army from them over the year.
  10. Trailer
    Trailer 25 January 2013 14: 29
    Is it really necessary in the 21st century on a daily basis, 7 days a week, 12 months a year to keep submarines on alert duty at sea?

    This is vital for Britain, and taking into account the North Korean and Iranian nuclear threats, as well as the chemical threat emanating from Syria, this requires the British to build additional nuclear submarines! wassat
  11. CaLLIoK
    CaLLIoK 25 January 2013 14: 42
    and what the hell should they have a shield for?) they wouldn’t poke their nose and there would be no problems) we would be saddened more if they had no football))) and a shield ... pfff!
  12. Russian sniper
    Russian sniper 25 January 2013 15: 08
    And they say one of the great powers of the world tongue They sit in expensive restaurants and drink coffee while their nuclear shield rusts and rots. hi Russia has experienced so many troubles and losses, and we are building our own submarines, even if not quickly. yes
  13. Chicot 1
    Chicot 1 25 January 2013 15: 18
    Objectively, this is an event from the category of those from which, in essence, it is neither cold nor hot. The fact that London is losing nuclear weapons is more of a problem for London itself, its causal difficulties. At the same time, this is a blow to the feeling of self-sufficiency and some exclusivity inherent in the descendants of the creators of the British Empire. But not more...
    As for us specifically ... The irreplaceable loss by the British of four SSBNs will have little effect on the overall alignment in the world, for there are so many vigorous warheads (at least in the same States) that they will be more than enough to take the whole globe to hell, moreover, it will remain ...

    But from a moral point of view, the news is quite pretty. Satisfied with all 100% !!! ... Gip-gip-hooray !!! One of the oldest (if not the oldest!), Traditional, principled, permanent (with the rare exception!) And stubborn geopolitical enemies of Russia loses its symbol of power. This you know can not but rejoice! ..
  14. nickname 1 and 2
    nickname 1 and 2 25 January 2013 15: 25
    NUUUUUU! Well, is there some good news? And I about it! And the Saxons are aging technology! And the laws of aging and corrosion act on their materials!
    And they do not have a bottomless barrel in the economy!
    tongue Hooray!
  15. sined0707
    sined0707 25 January 2013 15: 28
    Very good, I have been waiting for this news for a long time.
    Gentlemen, there is an opinion that Ameri will also soon be blown away while we gave them uranium at EBNE, they ruined their enterprises and developments in this matter, it is very likely that they will also have nothing to launch.
    uran.html who is interested here is a bit of information about how everything amers around, if at least a fraction of this information is true, then this is very encouraging.
  16. Kodiak
    Kodiak 25 January 2013 16: 34
    > ... the construction of even three "Successors" and the deployment of nuclear weapons on them may require up to 100 billion pounds (160 billion dollars) ...

    Antiresno, how many percent in the calculation was laid on drank?
    In the region of 90?
  17. Tatarus
    Tatarus 25 January 2013 17: 44
    And so they fast kapets. Here Scotland will hold a referendum on independence and kayuk. The Scots on the shelf say oil found
  18. patsantre
    patsantre 25 January 2013 22: 21
    the construction of even three saxessors and the deployment of nuclear weapons on them may require up to 100 billion pounds of steel (160 billion dollars)

    The author is on the count, even though they will be sawing the whole world, they cannot stand this close.