Claims that ‘underwater drones’ will render Trident carrying submarines vulnerable to attack have been dismissed by experts.
The Trident missile system is housed on the UK’s four Vanguard class submarines which form the UK’s strategic nuclear missile force. Each of the four boats are armed with up to 16 Trident II D5 SLBMs, carrying up to 8 warheads each.
The Royal Navy has operated the UK’s Continuous at Sea Deterrent since 1967 when the first SSBN – or Ship Submersible Ballistic Nuclear – HMS Resolution began patrolling armed with the Polaris missile system.
In 1996 HMS Vanguard, the first submarine armed with the Trident missile system, arrived on the Clyde and took over deterrent patrol duties from the Resolution Class.
The four Vanguard-class submarines form the UK’s strategic nuclear deterrent force.
Each of the four boats are armed with Trident 2 D5 nuclear missiles. Like all submarines the Vanguard Class are steam powered, their reactors converting water into steam to drive the engines and generate electricity.
Fitted with world beating sonar, the system is so sensitive they can hear vessels over 50 miles away.
In a letter to the Guardian, Captain Nick Batho (Rtd) said:
“All those who claim that submarines carrying Trident missiles are vulnerable to “emerging technologies” such as underwater drones should spend some time at sea. They would then realise the world’s oceans are vast, deep, impenetrable to sound and radio waves, and terminally hostile to the sort of small, battery powered, autonomous drone they envisage.
Submarines are just as difficult to detect now as they were in the second world war. I don’t see that changing during the lifetime of the projected replacements to the Vanguard-class submarines.”
The Minister for Defence Procurement also said:
“Don’t hold your breath. Admiral Lord Boyce, former First Sea Lord and submarine commander, says we’re more likely to put a man on Mars within the next six months than make the seas transparent within the next 30 years.
Such fears aren’t stopping the US and Russia spending billions upgrading their submarine fleets.”
While vessels can be detected, sometimes, from space the issue at the core of all of this is knowing where to look.
So apparently there was a vote today by the most on whether or not the trident site will get renewed
Does anyone know the results
Debate still ongoing vote later tonight
Is it on t.v.
It’s a meme that is propagated everywhere and in considerable quantity.
I assume it was a CND talking point bulletin sent to their lackeys
The other part of the problem is that we have an incredibly lazy Press that will happily publish any rubbish piece of press release they are handed. It’s easier than them thinking.
Did USA having nukes deter those involved in 9/11? Did having nukes in France stop Charlie Hebdou, Bataclan or Nice? Did GB having nukes stop the IRA bombing London? We’d be better off putting a lot of the replacement cost into intelligence. The man to worry about is the one planning to stick a bomb inside a lorry and driving it into the middle of any city he wants to including London. Who would you shoot the nukes back at?
The nuclear forces work for one reason, to deter a hostile state from shooting their nukes at you dummy. Every weapons system has its purpose, one size does not fit all.
Hasn’t taken place yet
Isn’t vulnerable? I’m not sure I believe that. If we are going to have nuclear weapons is having only one platform wise? Only 4 submarines to watch is alot less of a task
Vote was massively in favour or renewal, 400-and-something yes to renew against 100-and-something against.
They just seem to be making assertions without any evidence.
In fact, underwater (and surface and air) drones are rapidly maturing as ASW platforms, by the time the successor is launched in 15 tears they will be everywhere and it’s hard to see how subs will avoid them — take a look at this
– http://www.basicint.org/publications/david-hambling/2016/inescapable-net-unmanned-systems-anti-submarine-warfare
This is an utterly absurd concept lifted from a twenty year old rejected French research paper by a group of far-left ignorami whose understanding of the subject is simply nil.