Each trident missile carries 16 individually targeted warheads and each sub carries 8 missiles so that means thats 128 targets per submarine (and we have 4 subs). I'm not sure on the yield of each warhead but that is a lot of destruction potential. Easily enough to threaten every major population center and military base in Russia.
Poll: Trident - would you renew? (Poll)
- Thread starter Nitefly
- Start date
Each trident missile carries 16 individually targeted warheads and each sub carries 8 missiles so that means thats 128 targets per submarine (and we have 4 subs). I'm not sure on the yield of each warhead but that is a lot of destruction potential. Easily enough to threaten every major population center and military base in Russia.
Not saying we couldn't do some damage and its certainly enough to be a viable deterrent especially as we'd use them to maximum effect - its just the difference in contrast.
Do you remember WW3? When the USSR steamrolled into France, all the British soldiers stationed in West Germany died in the first 48hrs*, and a stalemate/truce was only made possible after the Americans/Canadians arrived to help us/France turn the tide?
No me neither, that's because of nuclear deterrents.
What he is saying is the equivalent of we should get rid of our anti-aircraft weapons as we haven't used them in awhile and they didn't stop some nutter going on a stabbing spree in a train station or whatever the latest terrorist incident in the UK was. Combined with first post of a new account its obviously trolling.
Well yeah but it doesn't mean there's no value in refuting his point, for the benefit of others.
Less depressing than Russia's 15,000 battle tanks steam rolling through continental Europe though
As before it would take as much effort and cost to convincingly bluff it as it would to actually have it, plus no risk of it leaking that we don't actually have it when we do heh.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 14,109
- Location
- La France
You do know that's the UK 'boomer' submarines that are up for replacement, not the Trident weapons family?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreadnought-class_submarine
Says pretty much everything needed to be known on that.
Associate
- Joined
- 31 Oct 2004
- Posts
- 2,316
The US had a similar system ERCS
Last edited:
Cheers. I'll look into it..
Soldato
- Joined
- 15 Feb 2003
- Posts
- 10,214
- Location
- Europe
Should we be renewing Trident or actually building our own devices? After all look what happened when Thatcher pressured France over the Falklands. Doubt Argentina has bought from them for a long time since.
In fact isn't this how the current news story has come about? A US defence official feely talking about it, whilst our government was busy ignoring/denying it.
In fact isn't this how the current news story has come about? A US defence official feely talking about it, whilst our government was busy ignoring/denying it.
Last edited:
Trident has a <1% failure rate, this is fantastic for the kind of technology we're talking about. The only people making an issue out of this are doing it for Political gain, which is pathetic frankly. I hope Scotland becomes independent and Labour evaporate in the next GE.
This is such a non story
Whats the misfire / jam rate of the weapons used by soldiers maybe we should have a winge at that as well.
You can bet if a missile didnt do as was expected for the cost that someone is looking into why it happened - stuff breaks big deal...
Whats the misfire / jam rate of the weapons used by soldiers maybe we should have a winge at that as well.
You can bet if a missile didnt do as was expected for the cost that someone is looking into why it happened - stuff breaks big deal...
Its impossible to make something 100% reliable so this is such a non story. Its not like you could ever blow up the wrong place, it would be aborted, then if that failed shot down.
I think in the future it will be interception that we rely on, some of the laser weapons are very impressive. A deterrent is all well and good but it relies on the other side actually caring, all it takes is what nutter and The End, to be able to intercept anything they did fire is where the future is.
I think in the future it will be interception that we rely on, some of the laser weapons are very impressive. A deterrent is all well and good but it relies on the other side actually caring, all it takes is what nutter and The End, to be able to intercept anything they did fire is where the future is.
Last edited:
A lot of fuss over nothing.
Should they have told us about the problem at the time? No, because it affects our national security
Should May have confirmed the failure after the information was leaked? maybe but does it really matter? Not really.
This is a waste of everyone's time, I actually feel reassured they do this kind of regular testing.
Should they have told us about the problem at the time? No, because it affects our national security
Should May have confirmed the failure after the information was leaked? maybe but does it really matter? Not really.
This is a waste of everyone's time, I actually feel reassured they do this kind of regular testing.