MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency

• 

  brasherboot

  Beautiful nuclear submarines to protect against tyrant countries like Argentina

  Mar 13th, 2023 - 12:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  -+

• 

  Pugol-H

  https://breakingdefense.com/2023/02/growing-signs-australias-new-nuclear-sub-will-be-british-design/#:~:text=All%20seven%20Astute%2Dclass%20submarines,life%20cycle%20of%2025%20years.

  Mar 13th, 2023 - 02:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  -+

• 

  Shogun

  Well Australia will just become another target for a nuclear attack
  
  Are they going to be Trident missiles ? who knows ....
  
  Another bonus for the US military industrial complex as all Trident missiles are serviced and maintained at King’s Bay, Georgia USA and some warhead components are also made in America.
  
  The UK cannot keep its nuclear threat operational without the help of the USA. obviously the Aussies will be in the same boat

  Mar 13th, 2023 - 08:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  -+

• 

  Pugol-H

  Australia is already a target, that and the increasing threat from China in the region are the reasons for Australia doing this.
  
  Neither the US Virginia class boats they will initially get, nor the Mk II Astute class boats they will build, will have Trident missiles, or be capable of carrying them.
  
  They would need one of the New Dreadnought class for that.
  
  However they will have underwater launched Tomahawk Cruise missiles, each of which can be loaded with up to 3 nuclear warheads and has a range of over 1,000 NM.
  
  Unlikely the Australians will go that far though, very, very much doubt they will go to nuclear weapons.
  
  The UK is actually the big winner in this, much of the kit for the Aussie boats will be built in the UK and by UK companies in Aus. The UK are world leaders in Sub technology, particularly Stealth and sonar.
  
  Also looks like the UK will double the size of its Submarine fleet in the process. With shared development cost (which are a lot in a project like this) more money available for buying the kit.
  
  The UK nuclear deterrent is certainly not solely reliant on Trident, or the US. And it’s not hard to check that, without even breaking the official secrets act.
  
  All in all a good deal all round, except for Chinese military planners who just got a big headache for the next 5 decades at least.

  Mar 14th, 2023 - 02:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  -+

• 

  Shogun

  The UK's only nuclear deterrent are its Subs
  
  The United Kingdom relies solely on its nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines (SSBN) for its nuclear deterrent, and the warhead deployed, the Trident Holbrook, is based on the United States’ W76 warhead. There is speculation that the United States’ W93 warhead – which may replace the U.S. Navy’s W76 warhead – might be the design basis for the United Kingdom’s next nuclear warhead, and the UK government has actively lobbied Congress to support its funding. The United Kingdom also buys its Trident II submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBM) from the United States.

  Mar 14th, 2023 - 04:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  -+

• 

  Pugol-H

  The UK buys the Missiles and launch systems form the US, however the rest of the Boat is UK designed and built, as I said ‘The UK are world leaders in Sub technology, particularly Stealth and sonar.’
  
  The Warheads are entirely UK designed and built, as required under Nuclear Non-proliferation treaty.
  
  We have several missile systems capable of delivering nukes, you just have to swap the warhead.

  Mar 14th, 2023 - 05:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  -+

• 

  Shogun

  The only ballistic missile system the UK has is the Trident
  
  Do you actually know the difference between a Ballistic Missile and a conventional missile
  Take for instance the Tomahawk.
  
  Fitting a nuke to a Tomahawk is not a Nuclear deterrent for obvious reasons if you know, what a ballistic missile is capable of. A Tomahawk with a nuke is basically a battlefield Nuke.
  
  You are talking about warheads not Missiles
  
  The current Warheads ( Trident Holbrook ) are virtually a copy based on the US W 76 warhead
  
  It was announced in 2020 that The UK was going to develop its own warheads similar to the USA W93 which back then was still in the assessment phase.in the USA
  As yet I am unaware that the UK designed war head has been completed and fitted to existing Trident ballistic missiles. It does not appear to be in the public domain if it has actually been deployed.
  The UK has to make similar warheads to the USA to avoid USA Trident Missile compatibility problems
  I

  Mar 14th, 2023 - 07:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  -+

• 

  Pugol-H

  Where to begin?
  
  Perhaps you don’t know the history of the Tomahawk? Or about ‘retaliatory or second strike’ deterrence.
  
  Probably weren’t around in the cold war, look up Greenham Common peace camp.
  
  Tomahawks were a cold war development, designed as a ‘second strike’ Nuclear weapon, as opposed to ‘first strike’ weapons like Trident.
  
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_strike#:~:text=The%20possession%20of%20second%2Dstrike,lower%20level%20minimal%20deterrence%20response.
  
  ‘The possession of second-strike capabilities counters a first-strike nuclear threat and can support a no first use nuclear strategy. Reciprocal second-strike capabilities usually cause a mutual assured destruction defence strategy’.
  
  Following the end of the cold war, it was re-invented as a conventional weapon carrying conventional warheads.
  
  Although they probably could be used as a ‘Battlefield weapon’, they were certainly never intended for that purpose, either conventional or Nuke. They clue is in the range, what ‘Battlefield weapon’ is fired from 1000 NM away.
  
  It is a simple matter to swap the warheads back to Nukes. Any warhead has to be compatible with the missile system carrying it, goes without saying.
  
  The new UK (W93 equivalent) warhead is going to be fitted with the introduction of the Dreadnought class boats, one would expect it to be compatible with the rest of the delivery system.

  Mar 15th, 2023 - 12:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  -+

• 

  Shogun

  Yes I agree cruise missiles are a tactical weapon not a strategic weapon, should have used the word “ tactical ” instead of “ battlefield ”
  Its range of 1000 + km is irrelevant in the real world as they are used to attack targets at closer range Ie. fired from the Med at Syria or from the Black sea /Russia at Ukraine,
  
  Don't need to look up the history of greenham common I happened to be around at the time,and the less famous RAF Molesworth protests which unlike Greenham did not get much global news coverage, but this in no way infers that I was for or against the protests.
  
  The UK as far as I remember does not have a Nuclear first strike posture,
  Relies only on its sea based strategic ballistic nuclear deterrent as the tactical nuclear weapons were withdrawn at the end of the cold war, if I remember correctly The RN can carry and launch tactical cruise missiles depends on the type if they can carry a nuke warhead. The same goes for the RAF the Typhoon carries the Storm Shadow cruise missile but this missile is unsuitable to carry a nuke war head its not so easy to interchange warheads on missiles as you think. Changing the missile to one that can carry a nuke brings its own problems, re. intergration with the aircraft.
  
  On a lighter note on the difference between strategy and tactics, the best explanation I heard was “ Strategy is How to get a pretty girl to go to the cinema with you and Tactics are what you do when you get her there ”

  Mar 15th, 2023 - 08:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  -+

• 

  Pugol-H

  Ok, they are now often used ‘tactically’, however they were designed as, and still are to a large extent ‘strategic’ weapons.
  
  https://www.britannica.com/technology/strategic-missile
  
  ‘Strategic missiles (weapons designed to strike targets far beyond the battle area) are either of the cruise or ballistic type. Cruise missiles are jet-propelled at subsonic speeds throughout their flights, while ballistic missiles are rocket-powered only in the initial (boost) phase of flight.
  
  The point about the range is that it would take the missile two hours to get to the battlefield, during which time things have moved, e.g. No one in their right mind would try and hit a tank or armoured vehicle with a cruise missile, unless of course it was nuclear tipped.
  
  They are intended for fixed rather than mobile targets, which makes them of very limited use on the battlefield.
  
  Yes, the UK does not have a nuclear first strike posture, however the trident ballistic missiles do give the UK a first strike capability.
  
  Interestingly the French nuclear deterrent has two components, Sub launched ballistic missiles and air launched, medium range, nuclear tipped cruise missiles (designation ASMP).
  
  RN subs carry underwater launched cruise missiles, each of which can be fitted with 3 nuclear warheads, no problem it’s what they were designed for.
  
  Don’t know about StormShadows, however it is made by the same consortium as the French ASMP.
  
  General Wavell described ‘tactics as the art of moving units about the battlefield and strategy as the art of having them arrive there in favourable dispositions’.
  
  I always say strategy is where you want to be, tactics is how you get there.
  
  Or tactics is how you fight on the battlefield, strategy is which field to fight on.
  
  However I like your analogy.

  Mar 16th, 2023 - 01:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  -+

Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!