Minister says UK remains committed to Trident system despite deepening nuclear cooperation.
In response to a parliamentary question on potential collaboration over France’s M51.4 submarine-launched ballistic missile, Defence Minister Luke Pollard reaffirmed that the UK will continue to rely on the US-supplied Trident II D5 system.
“The UK and France work closely together on a range of nuclear research and technology matters, including as part of the 2010 Teutates Treaty,” Pollard said.
He added that cooperation is also expanding under the 2025 Northwood Declaration, which includes closer alignment on nuclear policy, capabilities and operations.
However, the minister made clear that this does not extend to adopting a joint missile system.
“The UK will continue to rely on its Trident II D5 submarine launched ballistic missiles, which we procure from the United States,” he said.
“The Trident missile system remains the most reliable weapons system in the world and the government has absolute confidence that the UK’s deterrent remains effective, dependable, and formidable.”
The United Kingdom’s Trident system and France’s M51 are both submarine-launched nuclear missile systems designed to provide a constant at-sea deterrent.
The UK uses the Trident II D5 missile aboard its Vanguard-class submarines, with a new Dreadnought class set to take over in the next decade, and the missiles themselves are drawn from a shared pool with the United States, fitted with British warheads.
France operates its own M51 missiles on Triomphant-class submarines, with newer versions such as the M51.2 and the upcoming M51.4 improving range, accuracy and the ability to get through defences.
In practical terms, both systems do the same job, ensuring each country can respond even after a surprise attack, but they are developed and supported in different ways.
Most reliable?
A key reason Trident II D5 is still seen as one of the most successful strategic weapons systems is the depth and consistency of its testing record over several decades. Since entering service in the late 1980s, it has been test fired more than 200 times, with the vast majority of those launches successful, giving it a reliability rate well above 90 per cent.
There have also been long runs of consecutive successful tests, which is notable for a system of this complexity. Set against that, the two recent Royal Navy test failures are significant but remain rare in the overall record. They are generally understood to relate to specific circumstances during those trials rather than a fundamental issue with the missile itself.
The evidence still points to a system that has performed with a high degree of reliability over time.
Swapping reliance on France would be just as bad if not worse than swapping reliance on the USA, both have ultra nationalist political factions on the verge of obtaining power. The M51 is also slightly too wide to fit inside our existing vanguard and future Dreadnaught class submarines.
Nothing to stop us though getting MBDA to work along with Ariane Group to build our own SLBM. The technology is no longer particularly difficult, France paid €4 billion to develop M51 a further €3 billion to procure. These sums are well with in our capacity. If your spending £50 billion on boats and warheads why not spend the extra £7 billion to ensure a completely independent system.
Then we can stop listening to that orange sack of s**t across the pond.
Developing an independent SLBM and a UK tactical nuclear cruise missile should be the main two national priorities. Europe can provide everything else in a square off with Russia. We are the only ones willing and able to do nuclear.
The problem is that the way UK does and costs things would be 3-5x that.
French costs are very reasonable mainly because the entities are monolithic and realise that if the costs are not palatable then the projects won’t happen. In the UK our subcontracting culture amplifies costs and increases delays multiplied by the stop start nature of MoD funding.
Yes because we are clearly shit at everything, it’s amazing how we are somehow able to compete in aerospace with France if they can develop everything 3-5x cheaper than us.
France must be the richest country in the world then with such talent.
How do you suppose MBDA functions then if France can develop all the missiles 3 to 5 times cheaper. Why is CAMM so popular?
Why is everyone dropping FCAS and trying to get into GCAP?
Dassault claims the development cost for FCAs is €50 billion, should we surmise that GCAP will cost €150-250 billion?
That is an absurd argument.
The R&D costs of GCAP will be quite tightly controlled as it is a treaty project. The whole reason that Italy and Japan are upset with the funding round delays is that it is elongating the project and therefore pushing costs up. They are worried the UK won’t fund their share and try and fund it by dilution with other parties so more camel decisions etc.
Sea Ceptor is a good example of something done right which is actually causing unit costs to fall. However, a lot of the tech in SeaCeptor already was MOD and they have really just screwed the thing together as the design authority.
If you honestly don’t understand why some MoD project are 3-5x what they should cost you haven’t had much experience of defence contracting.
I don’t understand why UK cost to develop weapons are 3x to 5x more than France.
You haven’t shown me where this is the case.
I would appreciate if you could list the examples.
It is to do with the way UKMOD accounts for through life costs which eats a huge amount of the notional budget.
We’d be better off reverse engineering the the Trident and building our own. Its hardly cutting edge tech anymore. We need true independence that’s not reliant on the mood of the US toddlers.
There are two options: Stick with Trident and risk getting cut off, or build our own.
With Trident it isn’t the warhead that’s the problem – it’s depending on the US for the delivery system. We need a backup. We also need to have more actual missiles – can’t depend on US, China increasing it’s numbers,the UK and French combined total looks a bit weak… So I’m not saying replace Trident, I am saying put in a second system, preferably not free fall, preferably linked to a UK or joint UK/whoever system.
Don’t think we need to increase the nuclear arsenal, more spare rockets possibly ok. After watching house of dynamite and reading the book I think uk is definitely good with one boat always at sea, 2nd strike option. All the amazing USA tech, bunkers, nuclear football, doomsday planes, satellites, backup command etc etc, and claimed ability to shoot down incoming ballistic nukes is still no guarantee for their homeland sadly.
The UK could develop a 4000km range MRBM off the back of project Nightfall by incorporating a second boost stage. This could create a weapon along the lines for Chinas DF21 and DF26. Ariane Group is proposing something similar for Europe right now.
Such a system would open up a range of nuclear and conventional possibilities for the UK like Anti satellite, hypersonic, long range anti ship and nuclear precision strike. Just like China uses DF21 and DF26 to present a regional nuclear threat to India, Russia and the USA, the UK could do something similar with Russia.
A 4000km range would allow the UK to do precision nuclear strike against most of Russias occupied territories from the UK mainland. The UK’s current nuclear warhead Holbrook could simply re rolled once they are replaced by Astraea on the trident II missiles. IRBM’s like DF21 and DF26 don’t need the same advanced aero ballistic shells for re entry as an ICBM like trident II so it’s a fairly simple job and as such the warheads can be interchangeable between conventional and nuclear payloads. Holbrook is very advanced and its ability to offer a selectable yield between 0.3 and 100kt makes it ideal for such a weapon.
These are horrifying weapons however China and Russia both have them already. This is easily the cheapest quickest way for the UK to develop a credible land based deterrent.
If Europe/NATO found itself in need of a quick nuclear deterrent systems to replace America this would be the way to go. Using our current Holbrook warheads we could field over 200 of these weapons.
It is only a matter of time with Trump in power before Europe and the US have a big fall out. Trump is only 14months into a 4yr term.
I just hope we have worked out how to service Trident without the original supplier involvement – if that is technically possible. You do have to go to a Audi garage to get your Audi serviced – but that may be wishful thinking in this case.
I agree, writing is on the wall and Trump is currently trying to re write voter rules to stay in power, fortunately we can probably operate the trident missiles for a decade with no US support but that’s assuming he leaves office in three years.
Agree, a deep look at ability for uk to service missiles incase America was to stop.
I wish Britain would go back to the Polaris arrangement for Trident i.e. Britain owns its missiles, can load & unload them , & can do simple maintenance & upgrades. My back of envelope estimate says that would add about $6 billion. A fraction of the crackpot Chagos deal.
I would agree however I can only see it being possible with a new friendly democratic administration coming in for the UK to get such an agreement back. The Liberal Democrats are now proposing this very solution along with distant development for a trident replacement.
The good news is that Lockheed has resumed production of New Trident D5 missiles from 2027 so it should be possible for the UK to acquire new weapons now that would last for 40 years and would not be presented with the same and very expensive obsolescence issues experienced by the Polaris A3 in the late 70’s and early 80’s.