The UK's nuclear deterrent should take to the skies to save £13 billion, a new report by a Liberal think tank claims.
CentreForum argues that the Trident weapons system based on submarines on the Clyde should be replaced with an airborne variety.
It claims that current set up is an "expensive and excessive" solution to the UK's nuclear deterrence requirements "even by extraordinary standards set during the Cold War".
Politicians should revisit alternatives to Trident that could free up billions of pounds for the military, it adds.
The LIb Dems have long argued that the UK's nuclear deterrent should be "scaled back".
A LIb Dem-backed Coalition Government analysis of options ruled out anything except submarines.
However, the CentreForum report points out that since the review reported in July 2013 the US has proceeded with a new air dropped nuclear weapon for NATO - the 'B61 Mod 12'.
The report argues that the UK could credibly copy the design.
It even suggests that the UK's forthcoming F-35 Joint Strike Fighters be adapted to be able to deliver a minimum nuclear deterrent.
Toby Fenwick, a research associate at CentreForum and author of the report, said: "Trident is a gold plated solution that risks the modernisation of the UK's conventional forces.
"Its advocates need to explain how they can fund their expensive system without doing irreparable damage to the UK forces.
"With no party advocating increased expenditure ahead of the election, this is a tough challenge.
"Our costed proposal provides a credible minimum independent UK nuclear force whilst providing our soldiers, sailors and airmen with the equipment they need."
Dr Nick Ritchie, a lecturer on International Security at the University of York, said: "CentreForum has produced a very timely report that challenges Whitehall's political fixation on Trident and its proposed replacement. It builds an authoritative case that if the UK remains committed to deploying nuclear weapons then it makes strategic and fiscal sense to opt for an air delivered system based on the Joint Strike Fighter."
A final "main gate" decision on the replacement of the ageing Trident system is due next year.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article