Nuclear subs could be cut from four to three

BRITAIN'S fleet of nuclear submarines could be reduced to save money, but the renewal of the Trident system represented good value for money, said Defence Secretary Liam Fox.

Dr Fox said the number of submarines may be cut from four to three if it could be done while maintaining the UK's "continuous at-sea" deterrence, but any decisions on reducing the fleet would not be taken until 2014/15.

His comments came in questioning after a speech at Chatham House in which he insisted Britain should retain a "war fighting edge" and remain committed to renewing the controversial Trident system.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

He acknowledged that the UK faced "tough economic times", but said the country should still spend enough money to ensure it had "robust and well-equipped armed forces capable of intervening abroad where necessary to protect our security and interests at home".

The coalition government has specifically excluded the Trident system from the forthcoming spending review, but the renewal of the system is to be subject to an examination of its costs to identify potential savings.

Yesterday, Dr Fox admitted that the coalition could yet follow the Labour government's policy of scaling back the size of the fleet if improvements to technology meant three submarines would allow one to be deployed permanently at sea.

The Defence Secretary said the value-for-money review was looking at whether the nuclear deterrent can be maintained "while reducing the cost of the successor submarine and ballistic missile systems, including by shifting the balance between financial savings and operational risks".

"That reality is still there. We would have to look at what technology was available and what risks we were taking as we came to make that decision on the fourth submarine in 2014/15."

Earlier, he used his speech to restate his belief that the Trident system was necessary in a world where nuclear proliferation was widening.

He said: "The current policy of maintaining the UK's essential minimum deterrent remains unchanged," Dr Fox said.

"Yes, I accept the capital costs of the successor programme are likely to be up to 20bn spread over the next decade or so. But that seems to me to be pretty good value when compared with the amount spent every year by Government - over 650bn annually." Mr Fox warned the country would be "at risk" unless its enemies understand that Britain has "the credible capability to intervene and the political will to carry it through", he said.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

His speech comes ahead of a spending review in which most Whitehall departments will be asked to cut an average 25 per cent from budgets over four years.

Chancellor George Osborne has indicated that savings demanded from the MoD will be lower, because of the "particular pressures" on defence.

Dr Fox revealed he had ordered MoD ministerial staff to limit summer holidays to two weeks and to work Saturdays through September in order to complete the SDSR (Strategic Defence and Security Review] on time.

But SNP Westminster leader and defence spokesman, Angus Robertson MP said the claims that Trident represented good value for money were "the economics of the madhouse".

He said: "It cannot be right to proceed with its procurement whilst aiming to cut other conventional areas of defence spending at a time when our forces need support most."

Nearly three-quarters of opinion formers in Britain think the government should either scrap the country's nuclear weapons or look for a cheaper alternative, according to a poll published yesterday.

Just under a third of business leaders, politicians, academics and journalists polled by YouGov for the Chatham House think tank said Britain should abandon its nuclear deterrent after Trident expires in 2024. This is higher than a fifth of ordinary voters polled by YouGov who want to scrap it.

A fifth of opinion makers questioned said they backed a straight replacement of Trident.

More than four in ten wanted a cheaper nuclear option, possibly an airborne weapon or a new deterrent carried by fewer submarines..