Trident: Should a PM scrap it (and some other defence issues)?

[MP33]

Mod Note: Posts #1 - #43 were originally in this thread.

I wish that a Prime Minister, had the courage to cancel that complete ineffectual waste of money, that is Trident.

 

[Carlisle]

I wish that a Prime Minister, had the courage to cancel that complete ineffectual waste of money, that is Trident.

Worked brilliantly for Neil Kinnock didn’t it ?

 

[Twingo37175]

Worked brilliantly for Neil Kinnock didn’t it ?

And also for Michael Foot (showing my age) and even more so for Jeremy Corbyn

 

[Tezza1978]

I wish that a Prime Minister, had the courage to cancel that complete ineffectual waste of money, that is Trident.

Bizarre statement. Shall we just ask Uncle Vlad nicely to point his nukes away from us when we unilaterally disarm then like Polanski suggested?

 

[MP33]

Do you think that Putin will care about our 24 missiles. And there may be less than that actually in working order. Being carried by almost clapped out Nuclear submarines.

 

[gabrielhj07]

Do you think that Putin will care about our 24 missiles. And there may be less than that actually in working order. Being carried by almost clapped out Nuclear submarines.

Can Putin (or any potential adversary) afford to take that chance?

 

[Broucek]

Do you think that Putin will care about our 24 missiles. And there may be less than that actually in working order. Being carried by almost clapped out Nuclear submarines.

Would only need one....

 

[Ashley Hill]

I wish that a Prime Minister, had the courage to cancel that complete ineffectual waste of money, that is Trident.

I imagine that conversation would go somewhat like this.

Extract from Yes Prime Minister with the PM suggesting cancelling Trident.

 

[D6130]

I imagine that conversation would go somewhat like this.

Extract from Yes Prime Minister with the PM suggesting cancelling Trident.

Like!

 

[Tezza1978]

Do you think that Putin will care about our 24 missiles. And there may be less than that actually in working order. Being carried by almost clapped out Nuclear submarines.

Sorry - you aren't talking truthfully here. There are 18-20 missiles on each sub and 4 subs. 180-190ish independently targetable MIRV warheads in total and more in storage. New Dreadnought class being currently built.

We are also acquiring the F-35A to re-establish the RAF's nuclear deterrent role.

Given Trump's isolationism /threats to leave NATO we would be barking mad to give up our nuclear deterrent.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Jul 2026 ==

I imagine that conversation would go somewhat like this.

Extract from Yes Prime Minister with the PM suggesting cancelling Trident.

Brilliant!!

 

[najaB]

Do you think that Putin will care about our 24 missiles. And there may be less than that actually in working order. Being carried by almost clapped out Nuclear submarines.

It only takes one thermonuclear bomb to really ruin your day. And 24 16 missiles per boat, each missile carrying eight warheads adds up to a very bad day.

 

[ainsworth74]

Sorry - you aren't talking truthfully here. There are 18-20 missiles on each sub and 4 subs. 180-190ish independently targetable MIRV warheads in total and more in storage. New Dreadnought class being currently built.

Not quite. The UK has approximately 220 warheads in stockpile (likely to rise to around 260) and around 120 that are operationally available with, historically post-Cold War, around 40-50 were actually deployed on any one submarine. Each Vanguard class submarine has 16 missile tubes though it is not declared how many missiles each submarine is loaded with, though with only 40-50 warheads typically deployed it's probable that not all 16 tubes are filled. Dreadnought will actually have slightly less missile tubes with only 12 per submarine rather than 16. Though Trident's throw weight is such that each Dreadnought would still probably be able to launch around half the entire stockpile in one go if fully loaded.

Since 2021 the UK has stopped publishing quite so detailed data around the nuclear deterrent as we've moved to a more ambiguous policy but it's highly likely the stockpile in total has remained relatively similar size and the total deployed warheads probably hasn't changed all that much either.

We are also acquiring the F-35A to re-establish the RAF's nuclear deterrent role.

Which is a somewhat mad waste of money that could be used for more useful defence projects. Like buying more F-35Bs to help fill out the carrier decks.

Given Trump's isolationism /threats to leave NATO we would be barking mad to give up our nuclear deterrent.

Indeed, it's an important contribution to our own security but also wider European security.

 

[najaB]

Which is a somewhat mad waste of money that could be used for more useful defence projects. Like buying more F-35Bs to help fill out the carrier decks.

Agreed. Nuclear-armed fighters are a tactical weapon. That made sense when there was a realistic threat of Warsaw Pact tanks rolling through the Fulda Gap, but these days I really can't see the point.

 

[Yew]

Which is a somewhat mad waste of money that could be used for more useful defence projects. Like buying more F-35Bs to help fill out the carrier decks.

Indeed, just as in railways, micro-fleets are a great way of spending a lot and getting a little.

My feeling is that this decision is probably driven ensuring we can maintain an active nuclear deterrent. Vanguard class submarines are having to take very long patrols, likely due to aging boats needing longer maintenence, and delays to the Dreadnought class may be risking compromising the continous at sea deterrent.

 

[najaB]

My feeling is that this decision is probably driven ensuring we can maintain an active nuclear deterrent. Vanguard class submarines are having to take very long patrols, likely due to aging boats needing longer maintenence, and delays to the Dreadnought class may be risking compromising the continous at sea deterrent.

Manned fighters with a combat radius of say 1,000km are not an effective deterrent against an enemy whose closest border is 1,200km away (Kaliningrad). For us, if anything, they are a defensive weapon to be used against a Russian army that's already advancing though western Europe.

If the MoD determined that the SSBNs aren't reliable enough then we'd be better placed to invest in land-based IRBM silos than F-35As.

 

[Yew]

Manned fighters with a combat radius of say 1,000km are not an effective deterrent against an enemy whose closest border is 1,200km away (Kaliningrad). For us, if anything, they are a defensive weapon to be used against a Russian army that's already advancing though western Europe.

Indeed, it's a much smaller capability, and one that I'm not certain is all that useful, the idea of a Russian army advancing through western europe not a problem.

Similarly, the A subvariant is a nice plane, but I'm not certain their advantages over the B outweigh the costs of training/supply etc of a larger number of Bs.

Hence my view that this is largely so we can say "technically we have a nuclear deterrent" if we can't get some subs patched up in time.

 

[ainsworth74]

but how he funds it is the difficult part.

Glad I'm not PM! Much more fun just poking holes from the sidelines

Agreed. Nuclear-armed fighters are a tactical weapon. That made sense when there was a realistic threat of Warsaw Pact tanks rolling through the Fulda Gap, but these days I really can't see the point.

Indeed, if anyone should be joining NATO nuclear sharing it should be Poland. The UK joining the game makes very little sense. Though I'm increasingly thinking this is stupid inter-service rivalry again. Back in 2025 the RAF were telling everyone:

The RAF will be equipped with twelve new F-35A fifth-generation aircraft, as part of the Security Defence Review. The procurement of F-35A marks a significant step in delivering a more lethal “Integrated Force”, to maintain operational relevance, which deters, fights, and wins.

The F-35A aircraft will be available to fly NATO’s nuclear mission in a crisis, deepening the UK’s contribution to NATO’s nuclear burden-sharing arrangements, and deter those who would do the UK and our Allies harm. It reintroduces a nuclear role for the RAF for the first time since the UK retired its sovereign air-launched nuclear weapons following the end of the Cold War.

This complements the UK’s own operationally independent nuclear deterrent, strengthens NATO’s nuclear deterrence, and underlines the UK’s unshakeable commitment to NATO and the principle of collective defence under Article V.

RAF F-35A marks a significant step in delivering a more lethal Integrated Force and joining NATO Nuclear Mission

The RAF will be equipped with twelve new F-35A fifth-generation aircraft, as part of the Security Defence Review.

www.raf.mod.uk

Only to then come out and say the other week:

The twelve F-35A aircraft ordered by the UK were not purchased to perform the NATO dual-capable aircraft mission, Air Vice-Marshal Jim Beck has said, with the size and shape of the force that will actually deliver the nuclear role still being analysed.
​

Speaking at the Global Air & Space Chiefs’ Conference in London, Beck, the RAF’s Director Capability and Programmes, moved to correct a widespread assumption that has followed the 2025 Strategic Defence Review’s announcement that Britain would buy the conventional take-off variant and rejoin NATO’s nuclear mission. “For any clarification, or to avoid any doubt, we did not buy those 12 aircraft for dual capable aircraft capability. We bought them for our conversion units,” he told the conference. “At the same time, we stated we would get back into the dual capable aircraft role supporting NATO. The two are separate.”

Reporting since the SDR has frequently described the twelve F-35As, to be based at RAF Marham, as the aircraft that would carry US B61-12 gravity bombs under NATO’s nuclear sharing arrangements. Beck’s remarks make clear that the initial batch is destined for the training and conversion role, while the RAF conducts analysis to determine what force will be required for the nuclear mission itself. “We’re doing the analysis to understand the size and posture of force that we will need,” he said, describing the two functions as separate undertakings that should not be conflated.

New F-35As not bought for nuclear role, says Beck

The 12 F-35As the UK is planning to operate are being bought for the conversion unit rather than the NATO nuclear mission, AVM Jim Beck has told #GlobalAirSpaceChiefs26.

ukdefencejournal.org.uk

Typically an operational conversion unit would be equipped with the same aircraft that the pilots are going to fly in operations. You know, the whole point being so they can learn how best to fly the aircraft they're going to be taking into combat. So it's very odd that you'd buy 12 F-35As to provide the training for F-35B pilots (for one thing, the F-35B can, you know, take off and land vertically. It's rather famous for it actually. Not sure how you train that in F-35A. Odd that is unless you're hoping to thin end of the wedge your way to a bigger F-35A buy in the future which will keep you away from those Navy carriers...

My feeling is that this decision is probably driven ensuring we can maintain an active nuclear deterrent. Vanguard class submarines are having to take very long patrols, likely due to aging boats needing longer maintenence, and delays to the Dreadnought class may be risking compromising the continous at sea deterrent.

If you want my personal conspiracy theory regarding the deterrent but which has no actual evidence it's that the at sea deterrent has been gapped at least once already by an undisclosed breakdown by one of the Vanguard's. That fleet is in a state and it will be a miracle if we can get to the 2030s without a very public failure.

 

[najaB]

If you want my personal conspiracy theory regarding the deterrent but which has no actual evidence it's that the at sea deterrent has been gapped at least once already by an undisclosed breakdown by one of the Vanguard's. That fleet is in a state and it will be a miracle if we can get to the 2030s without a very public failure.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if that was the case. It's worth noting though that even at port, as long as the ship is capable of putting to sea in days rather than weeks, a SSBN can still provide a somewhat-credible second-strike capability since it's exceedingly unlikely that a Russian attack would come out of the blue.

 

[MP33]

Some years ago. A nuclear submarine was docked at Gibraltar, for a long time. Due to a number of issues. The vessel had to enter port, to avoid a possible mutiny regarding conditions on board.

 

[AlterEgo]

Some years ago. A nuclear submarine was docked at Gibraltar, for a long time. Due to a number of issues. The vessel had to enter port, to avoid a possible mutiny regarding conditions on board.

HMS Tireless, yes, which is no longer in service.

 

[martin butler]

Its too late now, but what we should have done, IMHO, is to have not brought the f35 at all, our carriers were designed first as conventual catapult launch, we should have stuck with it, and licence built with Saab, a maritime version of the Gripen, with RR engines, upgraded software and able to operate in ground attack as well as maritime missions, We could have then, become export partners with Saab, to build export versions of the JAS39.

 

[JamesT]

Its too late now, but what we should have done, IMHO, is to have not brought the f35 at all, our carriers were designed first as conventual catapult launch, we should have stuck with it, and licence built with Saab, a maritime version of the Gripen, with RR engines, upgraded software and able to operate in ground attack as well as maritime missions, We could have then, become export partners with Saab, to build export versions of the JAS39.

They weren't designed as catapult launch. BAE claimed they were designed such that they could be converted to catapult, but then turned around and asked for several billion when the coalition government briefly considered that option.
Nothing to do with the fact that BAE are a subcontractor on F35 and therefore are guaranteed business if we actually want some planes for the carriers...

 

[Spamcan81]

Its too late now, but what we should have done, IMHO, is to have not brought the f35 at all, our carriers were designed first as conventual catapult launch, we should have stuck with it, and licence built with Saab, a maritime version of the Gripen, with RR engines, upgraded software and able to operate in ground attack as well as maritime missions, We could have then, become export partners with Saab, to build export versions of the JAS39.

Is there even a maritime version of the JAS39?

 

[gg1]

They weren't designed as catapult launch. BAE claimed they were designed such that they could be converted to catapult, but then turned around and asked for several billion when the coalition government briefly considered that option.
Nothing to do with the fact that BAE are a subcontractor on F35 and therefore are guaranteed business if we actually want some planes for the carriers...

As far as BAE are concerned, that aspect wouldn't make any difference.

If the carriers had been fitted with catapaults they would still operate F-35s just a different variant, F-35Cs as opposed to F-35Bs.

 

[Tezza1978]

Is there even a maritime version of the JAS39?

Maybe we could have bought the Rafale instead which is definitely carrier capable... (if we had cats and traps on the 2 carriers). Buying fighter jets from the French..... would have resulted in some performative outrage from the Express, Mail, Telegraph etc

[Sae this aircraft display at Cosford last month! Brilliant aircraft]

 

[najaB]

They weren't designed as catapult launch. BAE claimed they were designed such that they could be converted to catapult, but then turned around and asked for several billion when the coalition government briefly considered that option.

Those two facts aren't in direct conflict. They are designed so that they can be converted to CATOBAR operation with sufficient application of cash.

 

[martin butler]

Is there even a maritime version of the JAS39?

Saab were actively looking into it, its in their future plans to introduce a maritime gripen, based on the F airframe.

 

[Yew]

Its too late now, but what we should have done, IMHO, is to have not brought the f35 at all, our carriers were designed first as conventual catapult launch, we should have stuck with it, and licence built with Saab, a maritime version of the Gripen, with RR engines, upgraded software and able to operate in ground attack as well as maritime missions, We could have then, become export partners with Saab, to build export versions of the JAS39.

We could also fit machine guns to a Cessna, but neither would give us the capabilities that the F35 does. The Gripen can be seen on radar from hundreds of miles away - the F35 cannot.

 

[DarloRich]

If you want my personal conspiracy theory regarding the deterrent but which has no actual evidence it's that the at sea deterrent has been gapped at least once already by an undisclosed breakdown by one of the Vanguard's. That fleet is in a state and it will be a miracle if we can get to the 2030s without a very public failure.

I think it would have come out, eventually. I suspect the reality is that it is by hook or by crook we keep CASD going. TBH it doesn't really matter if the submarine is capable of firing. It just has to be at sea and perhaps even just to be seen going to sea is enough.

People saying deterrence ( or Trident) is a waste of money don't live in the real world. How you can look at Ukraine and make that statement is beyond me.

The government say:

An independent, minimum, credible nuclear deterrent, assigned to the defence of NATO, is essential to guarantee our security. In an uncertain and contested world, the purpose of the UK’s nuclear deterrent remains constant: to preserve peace, prevent coercion, and deter aggression.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...ar-deterrent-the-national-endeavour-explained

but I think I will go with Ernest Bevin: We’ve got to have this thing over here whatever it costs… We’ve got to have the bloody Union Jack on top of it.

Our nuclear weapons programme is something Labour played a massive part in delivering and something we as Labour people should be proud of. It has kept us safe and it keeps us safe. It is very much a point of difference between the parts of the labour party. Decent, hard working, patriotic folk on one side and the prune juice drinkers on the other

Some years ago. A nuclear submarine was docked at Gibraltar, for a long time. Due to a number of issues. The vessel had to enter port, to avoid a possible mutiny regarding conditions on board.

An attack submarine not a missile submarine.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Jul 2026 ==

Maybe we could have bought the Rafale instead which is definitely carrier capable... (if we had cats and traps on the 2 carriers). Buying fighter jets from the French..... would have resulted in some performative outrage from the Express, Mail, Telegraph etc

Buy French? FRENCH? You should be locked up in the tower for even suggesting it! Buying French doesn't keep skilled people in UK jobs working and paying tax. Plus, there are no marginal constituencies in Marseille.

 

[uglymonkey]

We could "share" deterrence with the French, if our subs are getting a little old always ensuring there is either a French or SsBN sub on patrol at all times ( sometimes both) - didn't they talk about this at some point in the past. To prevent gaps in coverage?