« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

Author Topic: UK to maintain nuclear deterrent  (Read 773 times)

Offline Ball

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1827
UK to maintain nuclear deterrent
« on: December 04, 2006, 02:34:03 PM »
There was talk about the British getting rid of their nuclear subs, decided today to replace them with a new fleet.

MOD website

IMO those politicians (1 in 4) wanting to scrap our nuclear weapons are short sighted and dangerous.

Current fleet: -

http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/show/nav.2420
« Last Edit: December 04, 2006, 02:37:43 PM by Ball »
Logged

Offline VOR

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2313
UK to maintain nuclear deterrent
« Reply #1 on: December 04, 2006, 02:34:59 PM »
Page not found.
Logged

Offline Ball

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1827
UK to maintain nuclear deterrent
« Reply #2 on: December 04, 2006, 02:35:42 PM »
wont allow a direct link for some reason, go here: -

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/Home/
Logged

Offline Halo

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3222
UK to maintain nuclear deterrent
« Reply #3 on: December 04, 2006, 03:26:12 PM »
One nuke missile sub prowling the deep to provide nuclear deterrence for one island nation.  Is that what's meant by pier pressure?
Logged
Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity. (Seneca, 1st century AD, et al)
Practice random acts of kindness and senseless beauty. (Anne Herbert, 1982, Sausalito, CA)
Paramedic to Perkaholics Anonymous

Offline Stang

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6127
UK to maintain nuclear deterrent
« Reply #4 on: December 04, 2006, 03:29:41 PM »
Wtg UK.

  :aok
Logged

Offline 2bighorn

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2829
UK to maintain nuclear deterrent
« Reply #5 on: December 04, 2006, 03:50:18 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Halo
One nuke missile sub prowling the deep to provide nuclear deterrence for one island nation.  Is that what's meant by pier pressure?

Four, capable of carrying 64 Tridents with 192 warheads in total. Quite a force if you ask me...

EDIT: 192 warheads per boat (16 Tridents each), so 768 for the fleet.
« Last Edit: December 04, 2006, 03:55:27 PM by 2bighorn »
Logged

Offline Halo

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3222
UK to maintain nuclear deterrent
« Reply #6 on: December 04, 2006, 05:00:26 PM »
But usually only one out on patrol, I think, from the cited story, which says now 200 warheads and eventually 160.  Formidable, yes, and better for Britain to have that than many other nations.
« Last Edit: December 04, 2006, 05:05:35 PM by Halo »
Logged
Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity. (Seneca, 1st century AD, et al)
Practice random acts of kindness and senseless beauty. (Anne Herbert, 1982, Sausalito, CA)
Paramedic to Perkaholics Anonymous

Offline wooley

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 293
UK to maintain nuclear deterrent
« Reply #7 on: December 04, 2006, 05:42:52 PM »
The Vanguard class boats are still relatively speaking brand new. I gues most of the projected costs will be in maintaining the missiles.

Missile subs are seriously creepy. I grew up on the Firth of Clyde in Scotland which is the home of the UK boats (and some US boats at the Holy Loch until relatively recently). It used to give me the heebie jeebies thinking about what they were capable of.

Glad to see a rare piece of forward planning from our Government. Let's just hope Tony's lefty friends in the Labour party don't cause any problems passing this.
Logged

Offline Nilsen

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18108
UK to maintain nuclear deterrent
« Reply #8 on: December 04, 2006, 05:52:15 PM »
ive heard that UK nuke subs have to go over the pond to the USA for their missiles.
Logged

Offline Maverick

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13958
UK to maintain nuclear deterrent
« Reply #9 on: December 04, 2006, 06:03:52 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Nilsen
ive heard that UK nuke subs have to go over the pond to the USA for their missiles.


Where the hell do you want them to go, North Korea???

At least they don't have cluster munitions, that would be truly.....ungood.
Logged
DEFINITION OF A VETERAN
A Veteran - whether active duty, retired, national guard or reserve - is someone who, at one point in their life, wrote a check made payable to "The United States of America", for an amount of "up to and including my life."
Author Unknown

Offline Squire

  • Aces High CM Staff (Retired)
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7683
UK to maintain nuclear deterrent
« Reply #10 on: December 04, 2006, 06:25:07 PM »
For 30 Billion dollars US they are better off building up the Royal Navys conventional Carrier and Amphibious Warfare capability.

Yes, still have a nuclear detterent, but have it within the RAF and the CVs and SSNs of the Navy.

The SSBNs are a huge expense, and the only thing they are good for is a nuclear response, which is very unlikely to ever be needed. You can still have a deterrent force with a mixed deployment in two services (RAF and RN).

The most likely scenarios facing the Royal Navy is conventional force projection far away from home waters, Middle East, Asia, Africa, ect.

Just my opinion.
Logged
Warloc
Friday Squad Ops CM Team
1841 Squadron Fleet Air Arm
Aces High since Tour 24

Offline Nilsen

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18108
UK to maintain nuclear deterrent
« Reply #11 on: December 05, 2006, 01:40:28 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Maverick
Where the hell do you want them to go, North Korea???

At least they don't have cluster munitions, that would be truly.....ungood.


Most other nations that has nukes builds them themselves and are not dependant on other nations for the supply of their nukes. Atleast they could have stored them in the UK so they didnt hav to go across the pond to get their ammo.


What was your point with your retarded cluster munition comment when it has _nothing_ to do with the topic or my reply?

:rolleyes:
Logged

Offline Ball

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1827
UK to maintain nuclear deterrent
« Reply #12 on: December 05, 2006, 02:00:20 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Nilsen
ive heard that UK nuke subs have to go over the pond to the USA for their missiles.

Quote
Originally posted by Nilsen
Most other nations that has nukes builds them themselves and are not dependant on other nations for the supply of their nukes. Atleast they could have stored them in the UK so they didnt hav to go across the pond to get their ammo.


The Trident missile is an American design, the warheads are all British designed.  

We have all the missiles and warheads, no need to go and collect them from our friends across the pond.
Logged

Offline Nilsen

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18108
UK to maintain nuclear deterrent
« Reply #13 on: December 05, 2006, 02:15:02 AM »
Quote

The Trident II missiles are not actually owned outright by the UK. Instead the Trident II missiles belong to a pool of missiles managed by the United States and stored at Kings Bay, Georgia. British boats pick up their load of missiles at Kings bay when they are commissioned and exchange them there when missiles need servicing. The Trident warheads are mated to the missiles on-board the submarine at the Royal naval Armament Depot at Coulport.





http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Uk/UKArsenalRecent.html

http://www.thebulletin.org/article_nn.php?art_ofn=nd05norris

i got my facts slightly messed up, this is the story. :)
« Last Edit: December 05, 2006, 02:18:30 AM by Nilsen »
Logged

Offline Ball

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1827
UK to maintain nuclear deterrent
« Reply #14 on: December 05, 2006, 02:17:55 AM »
well i didn't know that, thanks nilsen.

on closer examination it even says so here: -

http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/AE97B570-0E9A-48BC-9405-857F5E962507/0/Cm6994_Factsheet4.pdf
Logged
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
« previous next »