It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Trident

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 10:06 AM
link   
Now I just know that I'm about to ruffle more than a few feathers from our deep blue water friends but, what I'd really like to know is this:

Our Beloved Leader, Prime Minister [call me Mr President] Blair, is about to announce plans to spend £25B - yes Billion on updating our [UK] Trident nuclear missiles.

Can anybody explain why we should spend so much on one weapon system to maintain our nuclear deterrent?

Could we not have better value for money if we had a couple of hundred nuclear equipped submarine launched Cruise or Harpoon Missiles? Is this technology not available here in the UK?




posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 02:50 PM
link   
Short of Britain spending even more amounts of money developing a Submarine Launched Ballistic Missile then thats it.As Harpoon missiles are short range antiships missiles i dont think they would be of much good,Cruise missiles or some future variant may be a possibility but are not capable of the short flight times and ranges compared to Trident D5.



posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by fritz
Could we not have better value for money if we had a couple of hundred nuclear equipped submarine launched Cruise or Harpoon Missiles? Is this technology not available here in the UK?


Bottom line, there is no better MAD deterent than the SSBN, and the Trident is the top of the line in Ballistic Missile technology on the market.

Take the MD (SDI) projects of the US for example, even if it was all fully functional, the ballistic missile defense would not be effective against the Trident. If it ever gets to the point where you need your nukes, you would much rather be the guy that can hit the enemy, as opposed to being the guy who can't hit your enemy, unless of coarse you want to die.

That isn't to say living post nuclear war would be some great life, just saying it is better than nuclear death.



posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 03:39 PM
link   
That, I think, is still a good idea.

The point about nuclear weapons is for them to be a deterrent, yes?

My premise is that even with Cruise missiles or Harpoon, you'd still be able to nuke an adversary.

It would not matter if the tgt was ship was sitting in it's berth when it got hit.

There would still be hundreds of thousands killed and surely that is the point.

Why go for overkill when a smaller weapon could still do the job and more importantly, get in low and fast, probably below radar and still get the job done?



posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 03:44 PM
link   
Trident D-5 has a range and accuracy similar to an land based ICBM.It has an MIRV payload of 8-12 MIRV's or 14 in a shorter range configuration.it's alos equipped with countermeasures lik chaff,decoys,flares, etc.

The UGM-133A Trident II D-5 SLBM is a significantly enlarged development of the UGM-96 Trident I C-4. It employs many of the advanced design features of the latter (including the extendable aero-spike, light-weight motor casings, and high-density fuel), and the larger size leads to an increased range of up to 11100 km (6000 nm). This range enables the Trident II to reach almost every strategic target in the Northern hemisphere when launched from SSBNs sitting in U.S. ports. The MK 6 stellar/inertial navigation system is able to receive GPS (Global Positioning System) updates, thereby increasing accuracy to that of a land-based ICBM, about 90 m (300 ft) CEP (compared to 380 m (1250 ft) for the C-4). The warhead section consists of six (or 14 in a maximum payload shorter-range configuration) MK 5 independent reentry vehicles, each one carrying a 475 kT W-88 thermonuclear warhead. Alternatively, the UGM-133A can also be fitted with the MK 4 reentry vehicles of the UGM-96A Trident I carrying 100 kT W-76 warheads.

www.designation-systems.net...


The Trident D-5 has a maximum range of 12,000 km (7,456 miles), similar to that of silo-based systems, and has a payload as large as 2,800 kg. Its payload carries a Post-Boost Vehicle (PBV) which can carry 8 to 12 Reentry Vehicles (RVs), though the first Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START I) limits the number to eight. These RVs can either be the Mk 4 with a W76 100 kT yield warhead or the Mk 5, which has a W88 475 kT yield warhead. The missile is almost certainly equipped with countermeasures. The system uses an inertial navigation system combined with a stellar reference system that provides an extremely high accuracy of 90 m CEP. The missile has a length of 13.42 m, a width of 2.11 m, and a launch weight of 59,090 kg. It uses a three-stage solid propellant engine.

missilethreat.com...

D-5 even out MIRV's the peacekeeper by 2 warheads.
better than any ICBM,Cruise missile etc.

Especially with all the dictators around you needa good deterrance.



posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by fritz
That, I think, is still a good idea.

The point about nuclear weapons is for them to be a deterrent, yes?

My premise is that even with Cruise missiles or Harpoon, you'd still be able to nuke an adversary.

It would not matter if the tgt was ship was sitting in it's berth when it got hit.

There would still be hundreds of thousands killed and surely that is the point.

Why go for overkill when a smaller weapon could still do the job and more importantly, get in low and fast, probably below radar and still get the job done?
Yes but it lacks the range and speed to hit targets in time and the payload.



posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 04:41 PM
link   
Size, as we guys keep being told, is not everything.

A 1 kiloton warhead will still kill thousands of men, women and children at Ground Zero.

As to the range, well I suppose a Cruise Missile has a range of what - a couple of hundred miles?

More than enough to get the job done - surely.



posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 05:12 PM
link   
The Tomahawk Land Attack Cruise Missile (T-LAM), has a range of around 3000 miles. However, it's very non-stealthy and is capable of being shot down relatively easily. It's also slow. The advantage of an ICBM isn't just the worldwide range, it's the speed, and the fact that they're incredibly hard to bring them down. You're talkinga warhead moving at 12000+ mph at reentry, as opposed to a cruise missile moving at 500+ mph.



posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
The Tomahawk Land Attack Cruise Missile (T-LAM), has a range of around 3000 miles.


Correction to Zaphods incorrect statistics.

The Tomahawk AGM/UGM - 109E has a range around 1000 nautical miles. The D-5 has a range of greater than 4000 nautical miles, with the exact range classified.

The Tomahawk is extreamly stealthy, but it is slow, less than the 500 mph you say. It can still be shot down if detected though, while nothing exists that can shoot down the D-5.

Trident reentry vehicle warhead yields are variable up to 475kg max. I think the minimum is something like 10kg, and the yield can be programed before launch. Most people don't realize the Trident has a configurable nuclear warhead yeild, since most nuclear weapons worldwide don't have variable nuclear yields.



posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 09:28 PM
link   
I think there is an alterior motive here.... He's using the Trident as an excuse.... I cant prove anything but you dont spend that kind of money on a dated weapon...You would spend that on a missle defense system...One you wouldnt want anyone knowing anything about.....The EU will be the super power of the world. The revised Roman empire...Somethings up...



posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 01:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by AlteredStates
I think there is an alterior motive here.... He's using the Trident as an excuse.... I cant prove anything but you dont spend that kind of money on a dated weapon...You would spend that on a missle defense system...One you wouldnt want anyone knowing anything about.....The EU will be the super power of the world. The revised Roman empire...Somethings up...


PLEASE - STOP IT AlteredStates. You made me laugh so hard, I thought I was going to have a heart attack.

There again, on the other hand, perhaps your'e right.

The UK's very own Blair (Which?) Project



posted on Jul, 17 2006 @ 07:33 AM
link   
To chuck in my 2 cents.

I reckon we should go down the cruise missile route. We already have an advanced air launched missile in the form of Storm Shadow.

Surely it wouldn't take much to stetch the design to increase range and carry a small to medium sized warhead. It would surely be significantly cheaper too.

This would have the advantage of being apaptable to other platforms, ie. land / sea / underwater. Therefore you could have the air launched version divided around the strike assests of the RAF and then a sub-launched version could be incorperated into Astute program or even refit the Vanguard class iwith vertical launch tubes in the present Trident tubes.
This would make it flexable and hard to remove in a pre-enptive strike, the biggest worry now the MOD say that they won't be maintaining a sub on constant patrol to save money.
On the down side, to provide a truly global stike capability the RAF would probably need a new bomber, the Tornado and it's replacement (what ever they choose) wouldn't have the required range.



posted on Jul, 17 2006 @ 08:39 AM
link   
Yeah Stumpy, I agree.

I've read a lot of the links to Cruise Missiles and I think I'm right in stating the Yanks have a missile with a range of +- 5000 miles that can fly at speeds of around 500/600 miles an hour.

Given that range spec [and I see it's actual range is classified by the USDOD] and the fact that dial-in yields are available for some nuc warheads, I think that is the ideal step forward.

Of course I could be wrong but IMO, could this be the big business interests at play here.

After all, a couple of hundred cruise missiles would not cost as much as a complete system upgrade which is of course what the contractor[s] are after.

But perhaps as a humble taxpayer, I am being too cynical?



posted on Jul, 17 2006 @ 12:38 PM
link   
i'm all for keeping/updating our nuclear deterrent!!

what happens if in 20/30 years if we are no longer close ties with america?

who do we relay on in europe to protect us from future threats, france? (the only other european nuclear power)


a nuclear weapon is the only form of defence against a nuclear attack on a our country....whilst britain will never use its nuclear weapons (or never strike first) we must maintain our nuclear deterrent for future threats wherever they may come.

we don't want to give up our nuclear weapons and have countrys like korea/iran bulling us saying if we don't do this and don't do that they'll launch a strike.



posted on Jul, 18 2006 @ 06:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by st3ve_o
we don't want to give up our nuclear weapons and have countrys like korea/iran bulling us saying if we don't do this and don't do that they'll launch a strike.


Do you honestly think N.korea or Iran is going to Nuke Britain?


There problem is with Ameirica.

Let America sort out there own problems.

America can take dozens of hit's from a nuke and still surivive on the other hand if Britain/England get hit with even a single nuke our economy and nation will get destoryed we cannot afford to fight other peoples war especially a dangerous country like America who starts fights with other people.

Korea and Iran are Americas problem if we stay out of there problems we will be 100% safe. Korea and Iran will only be our problem if we make it our problem otherwise we are safe.

No back on topic :

My personal opinion is we should just use Storm-Shadow cruise missiles and add a second stage booster to the back to extend the range and then add a nuke warhead on front.

This will give us 3 benifits :

1. Euro Technology where we will not require assistance or reliance on America for spare parts or replacements and can be self sufficent in the missile.

2. Cheeper to make becuase it will be a missile that we already have and can easily modify.

3. We no longer require expensive subs to launch ballistic missiles which themselves are also expensive.

But the main point is the more tech we take from America the more reliant we are on them and this gives them more say and leverage in Britains forign policy and national agenda and no offence to America but i realy don't want Britain to be connceted to there forign policy or them telling us what to do becuase it's incredibly dangerous for us to be involved in there problems.

[edit on 18-7-2006 by iqonx]



posted on Jul, 18 2006 @ 06:31 AM
link   
However as stated before the speed of a cruise missile leaves it open to even the most moderate of air defences as well as taking an increased time to target.
As for staying out of America's problems who is to say that will decrease our chances of being attacked.Being a western democracy is enough these days to be a target for extremeism,and as has been stated who knows what state the world will be in 20-30 years time.



posted on Jul, 18 2006 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by iqonx

Do you honestly think N.korea or Iran is going to Nuke Britain?


There problem is with Ameirica.

Let America sort out there own problems.

America can take dozens of hit's from a nuke and still surivive on the other hand if Britain/England get hit with even a single nuke our economy and nation will get destoryed we cannot afford to fight other peoples war especially a dangerous country like America who starts fights with other people.


why did you direct that quote at me??


i agree let america sort out its own problems!!

but are you saying we (britain) shouldn't maintain our own nuclear deterrent for future threats of our own?

how do you know iran/korea/russia/china won't attack us?
do you know this for certain do you?

well i for one will sleep better at night knowing that a 'small' £20 billion will make ANY country think twice about attacking britain if a cold war scenerio happens again in the future.





[edit on 18-7-2006 by st3ve_o]



posted on Jul, 18 2006 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by st3ve_o
i'm all for keeping/updating our nuclear deterrent!!

what happens if in 20/30 years if we are no longer close ties with america?

who do we relay on in europe to protect us from future threats, france? (the only other european nuclear power)


a nuclear weapon is the only form of defence against a nuclear attack on a our country....whilst britain will never use its nuclear weapons (or never strike first) we must maintain our nuclear deterrent for future threats wherever they may come.

we don't want to give up our nuclear weapons and have countrys like korea/iran bulling us saying if we don't do this and don't do that they'll launch a strike.


In answer to your post st3ve:

1. I would hope we will not be Uncle Sams lap dog in 20 or 30 years time. We have more than shouldered our share of their burden in this war on terror;

2. We Brits will never surrender our national defence to the French, even if they have learnt how to stand and fight;

3. I believe in nuclear design, development and deployment and as such, we should maintain our independent nuclear deterrent. However having said that, I do not believe that this is best achieved by spending £25B and keeping US companies in full employment. Time we went our own way.

4. Are you are joking about Iran and NK bullying us? How, When, and Why could they do this to us?

I would like to respectfully remind you that Great Britain is a major world superpower and as such, nobody will ever be able to kick sand in our face



posted on Jul, 18 2006 @ 12:57 PM
link   
You posted:

". I would hope we will not be Uncle Sams lap dog in 20 or 30 years time. We have more than shouldered our share of their burden in this war on terror; "



I will admit that historically the average American is one of the dumbest creatures that ever did not read a book or remember any news. The average American knows more about what is on television and the latest sports scores/American Idol et al than the history of the world..even the Western American world.

I will remind you that George Bush the first was not going to do anything about Iraq invading Kuwait on the early 1990s until Margret Thatcher came to the British think tank called the Aspen Institute and got his marching orders from the Crown's spokesperson. George Bush the first went in a dove and came out a hawk.

THe United States was not originally intrested in getting involved in WW1 on any side. It was not until Americas lap dog ...Woodrow Wilson got re elected into office on the campaign "He kept us out of war." that we got invovled on the Allied side with our men and material. The war with Germany had gotten bogged down in the trenchs and was at pretty much a stalemate. The French Army which made up the bulk of the Western Front actually went on strike and refused to go over the top anymore in these murderous offensives. A new lap dog/boot lacky had to be found and sure enough one came to answer he call or orders ..the United States.

Same thing in WW2....We know this becasue historically ..the "Victors get the spoils" The United States gained very few to no territories..after both wars for the manpower and mateial expended. Only a nation as "powerful" as the United States can be so stupid as to come home with so little spoils and massive casualtys and deaths. Nothing dumber than a flag waving American gone off to war for someone elses profit ..because the Americans did not bring home many spoils.
Only Americans can be this stupid and survive and continue on ..like the dummies they naturally are and our politicians work tirelessly to keep us this way by financing more public education to keep us more stuipid....Just like UK politicians.

My point in all this is be very careful whom you term lap dog...America has this role mostlly to itself..in its stupidity...and will continue to do so in the future.

Anyone thinking beyond the next sound bite knows this is true because only America can afford the body count and material losses compared to other nations.
What a dumb bunch of people..Americans..and I am one of them.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Jul, 18 2006 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by fritz

4. Are you are joking about Iran and NK bullying us? How, When, and Why could they do this to us?

I would like to respectfully remind you that Great Britain is a major world superpower and as such, nobody will ever be able to kick sand in our face


i know they couldn't bully us 'technogically' - but what good is technology with the atom?

all it takes is 1 to hit and then its total mayhem mate!!

if you look at my posts about previous nuclear threads when people say the united states are all this and the united states are all that.

america may invest most in their military but if it comes to nuclear war between the 5 major nuclear powers of the world (each one of those can cause nuclear winter), its just a case of who can get more in....technogical advange goes out of the window!!

thats why i said we don't want nations like iran/korea bullying us, because regardless of how good our military is compared to them, if we don't maintain our nuclear detarent this means nothing.

we could give them the biggest pounding of their life, yet 1 sub can come off our coastline then *bang* gameover, britain would have to surrender if we didn't have a nuclear missles of our own!!!

thats why in my view we need to invest in WHATEVER on a upgrade to the trident regardless of the cost, put it this way it could be much more costly to britain if we don't.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join