Britain votes to stay nuclear despite revolt

I thought the polaris agreement actually involved the sale of warheads aswell as the delivery system because the Trident II D5 missiles used in our submarines are actualy built by Lockheed Martin and manufactured in america, the submarines however are built here though.

[edit on 15-3-2007 by Starvald]

The polaris agreement was, as I said, for the supply of the delivery system. The UK already were making nuclear bombs and the govt of the day didnt want to loose the technological capability that had been built up. So they stuck with their own warhead development.


Just to add this is all off the top of my head, so I'm not going to claim 100% accuracy

There's plenty written about the UK bomb and missile development, even on the web.

regards

beagle

pip pip


[edit on 15-3-2007 by the smoking beagle]

yeah i now we make our own, well sort off, Lockheed Martin UK build them, but like the actual Trident II D-5's we use in our subs, they are built in america by Lockheed Martin.


[edit on 15-3-2007 by Starvald]

[edit on 15-3-2007 by Starvald]

neformore:
This is way off topic, but who is that woman in your avatar?

Off topic

Originally posted by SBDAL
neformore:
This is way off topic, but who is that woman in your avatar?

Her name is Nicloa Roberts and she is one-fifth of the UK (and probably Europe's) biggest all girl band, Girls Aloud. Some people say she is the least attractive member of the band. I say those people are nuts

Back on topic

There seems to be some confusion in this thread between missile and warhead.

Trident is a submarine launched missile system. The missile is seperate to the warhead. The missiles are produced and serviced by Lockheed Martin.

The warhead is a seperate unit that fits on/into the missile. The UK makes its own nuclear warheads - a decision spurred on at the end of WW2 by the US's refusal to share nuclear technology developed during WW2 with any foreign nation.

It is possible to have a trident missile with a conventional warhead - in fact a large number of the warheads deployed on UK subs are conventional. The trick is that some of them are nuclear, and at any given time no potential aggressor knows how many are in service and (hopefully) where the launch platform is, which is the basis of deterrence.

yeah but the even then British Nuclear Fuels plc[they provide the material] is actually ownd by Toshiba, and the manufacturer of our warheads is done by The Atomic Weapons Establishment who is ownd by the British Nuclear Fuels plc[Tpshiba] and Lockheed Martin UK.

So to what extent you can say they are "british" is debatable, but at least they get made here, albeit by foreign companys.

Originally posted by WOGIT
Hmm it wouldnt surprise me at all if Canada picks up one of the sub's that the UK plans to discharge.

The UK won't be selling these subs to anyone - they have the capability to launch nuclear missiles, hence they'll be dismantled Besides, SSBNs aren't great for combat - they carry a smaller torpedo load than a normal attack submarine because they have to dedicate a lot of room to the missile storage and control systems. I think (though please correct me if I'm wrong) they're also bigger than normal attack subs, too.

Besides, by the time they come out of operation they'll be worn out so Canada would be wasting its money by buying them. It's more cost effective to replace the subs completely than upgrade them because their lifespan can only be safely increased by a couple of years at a great cost.

The US equivalent to the Vanguard-class submarine, the Ohio-class, has a longer lifespan (through upgrades) so I suppose it's more cost effective than the UK system. However, one advantage of the UK system is that there are brand new submarines with brand new technology issued more regularly than the US does.

The warheads (the actual bits that go 'boom') are designed, produced and stored in the UK. The delivery system (the Trident missile) is bought from the US and maintained there. The submarines are all designed and constructed in the UK, and of course all maintainance and so forth also takes place within the UK.

I would suspect, as others have pointed out, that the Trident missiles can operate without the use of a satellite guidance system (it'll probably be less accurate, but accuracy isn't hugely important if you've got nuclear weapons) since we know it's possible to shoot satellites and destroy them (as China demonstrated earlier this year). There's bound to be some sort of safety mechanism to ensure the entire system isn't disabled if a guidance satellite is damaged or destroyed.

dont the USA poss UK too have replacement satalites onboard nuke missiles instead of warheads?

also is there not a fail safe plan for USA that has those satalites launched to run the nuke targeting of all missiles as a dooms day sort of weapon.

The only use these weapons could have is against China or Russia. Which is bloody pointless anyway, as we'd be wiped out by either of their arsenals and they could absorb everything we throw at them.

I suspect the hand of American influence, because they do have some caveats as to how we use our nukes and what would happen to our alliance if we didn't get their permission to use them....could just be the good old boys of the State Dept NeoRealist faction wanting to make sure we can inflict a fair amount of damage on China.

On the other hand, if Mark Curtis is to be believed, the FCO have been reading too much Tacitus and dreamily thinking of the earlier glory days of empire...and nukes of this calibre ensure a voice that will be heard on the global stage. In which case, I would expect the next Tory government to increase the number of second strike nuclear weapons we have, to at least gain parity with China.

Originally posted by Starvald
yeah but the even then British Nuclear Fuels plc[they provide the material] is actually ownd by Toshiba, and the manufacturer of our warheads is done by The Atomic Weapons Establishment who is ownd by the British Nuclear Fuels plc[Tpshiba] and Lockheed Martin UK.

So to what extent you can say they are "british" is debatable, but at least they get made here, albeit by foreign companys.

Your wrong.

BNFL is ENITIRELY owned by the UK Government. What your confused about is the management of some BNFL activities which has been contracted to Lockheed Martin and SERCO. Their just a third party supplier in specific area's of BNFL operations. Where you got Toshiba from is a mystery...

What you might be interested to know is BNFL bought MAGNOX and Westinghouse Electric companies. Nearly 60% of US Nuclear plant's are owned by Westinghouse and 50% of Worldwide Nuclear plants. All owned by BNFL. How's that?

Ah!, didnt think they were a public company, was getting confused with British Nuclear group.

"Where you got Toshiba from is a mystery"

BNFL sold Westinghouse to Toshiba for about 4 or 5 billion

Originally posted by stumason
Where you got Toshiba from is a mystery...

The poster is referring to Toshiba’s acquisition (with two other minor purchasers) of Westinghouse in late 2006; the agreement was forged between BNFL and Toshiba in the early part of 2006.

BNFL USA was also purchased by Toshiba in the deal.


Mg

BNFL? British National Football League?