Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Ball 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 (http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/DefencePolicyAndBusiness/GovernmentAnnouncesIntentionToMaintainTheUksNuclearDeterrent.htm)
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
-
Page not found.
-
wont allow a direct link for some reason, go here: -
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/Home/
-
One nuke missile sub prowling the deep to provide nuclear deterrence for one island nation. Is that what's meant by pier pressure?
-
Wtg UK.
:aok
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
ive heard that UK nuke subs have to go over the pond to the USA for their missiles.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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:
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
ive heard that UK nuke subs have to go over the pond to the USA for their missiles.
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.
-
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. :)
-
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
-
thx.. ill read it
-
there are a lot of pdf files linked from the original story i posted, that is one of the ones i hadn't read :)
-
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.
What was your point with your retarded cluster munition comment when it has _nothing_ to do with the topic or my reply?
:rolleyes:
It caught a retarded whopper. You want pliers to take that hook out?
Do you really really need a sarcasm alert every freaking time?
-
I dont think the UK should have nukes. That empire died ages ago.