£1 billion deal paves the way for Trident nuclear deterrent replacement

By Robert Watts, and Patrick Hennessy
8:30PM BST 16 Jun 2012

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9336252/1-billion-deal-paves-the-way-for-Trident-nuclear-deterrent-replacement.html

Philip Hammond, the Defence Secretary, will reveal the scheme to build a new nuclear deterrent in a move which will cause tensions with the Liberal Democrats.

He will announce a deal ordering nuclear reactors for a new class of submarines to replace the current Vanguard fleet, which carries Britain’s Trident nuclear arsenal.

The decision is the most public statement yet that the Government is committed to a full-scale replacement of Trident - something opposed by the Lib Dems, who want a cheaper way of maintaining nuclear weapons.

Mr Hammond will say that a Rolls-Royce plant at Raynesway, in Derby, will be given the order to build the reactors, and that the Ministry of Defence will fund an 11-year refit of the plant.

The contract will create 300 jobs and many more in the factory’s supply chain.

But it will create a rift with the Liberal Democrats. One senior Liberal Democrat source told The Sunday Telegraph this weekend that the replacement of Trident remains a “massive fault line” between the Coalition’s two parties.

The Lib Dems pledged in their 2010 manifesto that they would oppose a “like-for-like” replacement of the submarines and the nuclear warhead-carrying missiles which they fire.

Nick Harvey, the Lib Dem defence minister, is leading a review into cheaper ways to maintain the nuclear deterrent and wants to abandon the so-called “Moscow criterion”, which recommends Britain retains an arsenal capable of destroying the Russian capital.

The new contract, to be announced in the next few days, represents the Government’s biggest commitment to replacing the ageing Trident fleet, at a total cost of up to £20billion.

Ministry of Defence sources said that it was possible to go ahead with the reactor contract now because defence cuts and reforms to procurement meant new investments could begin.

A senior MoD source said: “This is good news for the Royal Navy and a great boost for jobs. These cutting edge reactors will support the UK’s submarines for decades and are a vital part of ordering long lead items for the new nuclear deterrent submarines.

“We have balanced the MoD’s books and can now get on with ordering major pieces of equipment for the armed forces to protect us against future threats.”

Conservatives are determined to replace “like for like” the Vanguard submarines, which are expected to be decommissioned in the late 2020s, Their Trident II D-5 missiles are expected to remain in service until 2042. It is undecided whether the Government will opt for three or four submarines.

Twenty years after the end of the Cold War, there are many new threats to international security, with growing fears surrounding Iran, China and Russia, Conservatives say. It is also claimed that failing to commission a new wave of submarines could cost up to 15,000 British jobs.

Although the Coalition Agreement between the Tories and Lib Dems said the parties would “maintain Britain’s nuclear deterrent”, it also said that “Liberal Democrats will continue to make the case for alternatives”.

A £350million contract to design the new submarines went to BAE Systems, Babcock and Rolls-Royce. But the symbolism of ordering reactors is far greater.

The new nuclear submarine contract with Rolls-Royce will be seen as one in a series of policies launched by the Tories which are designed to reconnect with the party’s grassroots. In recent weeks, Conservative ministers have unveil a crackdown on illegal immigrants and foreign prisoners, pledged new action on anti-social families and given ground on the prospect of a referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU.

The decision by Conservatives ministers to sign such a high-profile contract comes at a time of tense relations between the two parties. Many Tory MPs are seething with the Lib Dems for failing to support Jeremy Hunt in last week’s Commons motion calling for an investigation into the Culture Secretary’s handling of News Corporation’s BSkyB bid.

And it was made despite Sir Menzies Campbell, the Lib Dem grandee, making an open public call for ministers to abandon the “Moscow criterion”.

“Nuclear weapons have no intrinsic merit,” the party’s former leader said recently, adding that “it is unthinkable today that Britain would contemplate the destruction of the heavily populated capital of Russia – or any other city.”

However, opposition to a new generation of nuclear weapons will not be confined to Liberal Democrats. A poll two years ago found that 63% of the public said they supported scrapping Britain’s nuclear deterrent to cut the deficit in the public finances.

Some senior military figures have also opposed Trident, arguing that it consumes too much of the defence budget and leaves less money for front-line forces.

General Lord Dannatt, the former chief of the army staff, previously said in an interview: “It is a very fine judgement as to whether we should continue to have a nuclear deterrent or not.

“I think if we are looking at the character and nature of future conflicts and if we think we will be dealing with hybrid warfare or asymmetric threats, then may be for the next few years it makes sense to keep that ultimate deterrent in case some government in five, ten, or 15 years would want to threaten the security of our country.

“At present we should keep it but not forever.”

The push towards a new generation of nuclear submarines comes as the military is facing deep cuts, with the number of armed forces personnel set to be cut from 180,000 to 150,000 over the next five years.

A report published earlier this year by CentreForum, a liberal think tank, said: “Replacing Trident is nonsensical. There is no current or medium-term threat to the UK which justifies the huge costs involved.

"A critical assessment of the UK’s strategic position and military requirements leads to a clear conclusion: Trident makes no effective contribution to our security.

"Cancelling it will provide a unique opportunity to re-balance and revitalise Britain’s forces for the 21st century.”