The U.S. nuclear-powered submarine USS Delaware docked in the Faroe Islands, marking the first-ever visit of its kind to the North Atlantic archipelago, the U.S. Navy have revealed.
On Monday, the submarine made a scheduled stop at Torshavn, the capital of the Faroe Islands, following a similar visit in Iceland amidst mounting NATO and U.S. apprehensions over Russian underwater activity in the Atlantic Ocean.
“The Faroe Islands and the High North are vital areas for U.S. submarine operations,” commented Rear Adm. Stephen Mack, director of maritime operations for U.S. Naval Forces Europe-Africa, underscoring the strategic importance of these locales.
The USS Delaware’s visit mirrors the course set in April when the USS San Juan paused off Iceland’s coast for supplies and personnel. This followed an agreement ensuring Iceland and its territorial waters would remain devoid of nuclear weaponry.
“The United States and the Faroe Islands enjoy a close and growing partnership,” said U.S. Ambassador to the Kingdom of Denmark Alan Leventhal.
The USS Delaware’s arrival in the Faroe Islands also occurred shortly after the Icelandic government enabled the first U.S. submarine stop off Iceland’s coast in April 2023, and in the wake of multiple exercises involving NATO allies and partners in northern Europe and the High North.
“This port visit symbolizes the strong and enduring relationships we share with our Faroese and Danish counterparts,” said Rear Adm. Stephen Mack, reaffirming the strategic significance of the visit and the appreciation for the Faroese and Danish people’s hospitality.
We have a major issue developing over the new Dreadnought CASD Trident missile warhead replacement. Many in the UK are under the misapprehension that our nuclear warheads are a British design adapted to fit an American re-entry vehicle (the “Mk 4”) Not so. British warheads are known as “Holbrook” and are based on the American W76 design, which dates from the 1970s. The Americans have recently (and expensively) upgraded their W76 design to the low-yield W76-2, which required an upgrade to the re-entry vehicle and a new Arming, Fusing and Firing (AF&F) system. The original W76 design was developed and tested in underground nuclear explosions; we know that it works. It is unclear whether the UK have also upgraded their warheads to the W76-2, however it is thought unlikely that we have not done so as we both draw Trident missiles from the common storage and maintenance factility at Kings Bay, Georgia.
The Americans are also upgrading their SSBN with a smaller fleet of Columbia class submarines. Los Alamos have been tasked with developing a replacement warhead combination, the W93 / Mk7 re-entry vehicle. This work is only at the Phase 1 stage and will utilise component designs that have been developed by computer systems using actual nuclear blast data. All W93 key nuclear components will be based on currently deployed and/or previously tested nuclear designs, as well as extensive stockpile component and materials experience. However, the W93 will also incorporate modern technologies to improve safety, security, and flexibility to address future threats and will be designed for ease of manufacturing, maintenance, and certification
The UK wishes to arm our Dreadnought Trident missiles with the new warhead combination. The Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston is responsible for the design, manufacture and support of warheads for the UK’s nuclear weapons. We do build our own warheads and we have retained a sovereign capability to design a new warhead should it become necessary. But to build the proposed W93 warhead AWE needs data from the Americans; their design is not yet at this stage.
Funding for this development is being restricted by the Biden administration on cost grounds. In 2020 the UK Defence Secretary Ben Wallace wrote to the key congressional committee urging it to fund the W93 warhead, arguing it was, “crucial that we demonstrate transatlantic unity and solidarity in this difficult period”. Wallace and Sunak have continued to lobby the Americans to provide funding, however questions are being asked about why they should pay for this development to suit the British Dreadnought development program. The missile compartment of the UK’s new Dreadnought submarines will be identical with the US’s own new Columbia-class submarines. The UK has paid for a significant proportion of the compartment’s development costs
Our in-service and replacement warheads are, and will remain, compatible with the Trident II D5 missile that is deployed on the Vanguard Class and will be deployed on the new Dreadnought Class submarines.
The UK is working with our US partners to extend the life and replenish the existing Trident II D5 missiles to meet the future programme requirements of both nations. These life extension programmes will address obsolescence and continue to provide sufficient missile packages, including spares, to support the UK’s requirement. Much of the UK’s infrastructure for deploying, developing and building nuclear weapons is being rebuilt or refurbished. Unfortunately, Project Mensa, which involves the construction of a new warhead assembly facility at AWE Burghfield, is delayed by six years and forecast to cost over £1bn more than its original budget.
The UK can no longer test a sovereign nuclear weapon design, we are signatories to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Unless the Americans are prepared to fund the W93 / Mk 7 warhead combination at a (for them) accelerated speed, we will be forced to continue to use the aged Holbrook design in the Trident missiles carried by the new Dreadnought bombers – with all the potential complications that will involve.
“working with our US partners* …my arse
Trident is a US designed and built missile. When they decide that the missile is in need of refurbishment, we pay our share of the costs. All Trident missiles are maintained at Kings Bay, Georgia. There are no “British” Tridents, we both share the same missiles. The relationship between us and our American ally is indeed best described as a partnership.
Well the Americans are paying for a majority of it. The Trident II will continue to work fine in the new missile role. It’s still the most modern SLBM by global standards.
W76 is a perfectly effective bucket of sunshine for deterring with Mad Vlad.
It is always good to have the tech lead.
It is very hard to understand how the cost of a production line, even for nuclear things, over runs by £1Bn. That smacks of either an undeveloped design or a significant change part way through. Or both – most likely.
£1Bn buys an awful lot of laboratory space etc.
Hi SB. It’s very hard to obtain OSINT on nuclear matters here in the UK. I would suggest that very few financial people in the MoD know the true state of affairs at AWE. If you pry too deeply, the security service takes an (understandable) interest in why you want the information.
We are having a harmless superficial chat about the matter.
I won’t be reaching for a tin foil hat anytime soon.
A lot of the secrecy mania in nuclear is to protect information on the constant stream of mismanagement.
The old saying – The Official Secrets Act is to protect the officials and not the secrets is pretty true around these matters.
Don’t worry. George was aware of the content of the original submission well before i posted it. All the info is open source. And you are correct, the OSA is there to protect the guilty.
They get very sensitive if you are still serving and post operational information about deployments which could be of use to an unfriendly party.
UK Defence Journal operate a fairly strict moderaton policy and posts will (and do) get held until cleared. Or not, as the case may be. So post on m8 🙂
“ They get very sensitive if you are still serving and post operational information about deployments which could be of use to an unfriendly party.”
Quite right too.
Although the biggest help to the enemy was BBC/ITV telling the Argentinians their bombs were not fuzed correctly. That cost lives and ships as well as denting morale.
Most of us are quite careful to self censor. There is very little posted on here that you couldn’t easily be deduced from industry handouts or MOD press releases combined with commercial imagery / handout photos.
There are a few times various people have interjected where it was getting close to the bone.
This is an out of date summary. The US Congress has over-riden the Biden administration’s reluctance to increase funding for the W93 warhead program. The Los Alamos budget has been tripled in the Fy2023 budget to $240 million from $70 million.
The National Nuclear Security Administration have now confirmed that Phase 1 of the W93 project – the design concept phase – is complete. Clearly, Ben Wallace has influence in Congress. The additional funds will be for Phase 2 – feasibility studies and design concept.
Thank you so much for advising that my detailed technical summary is out of date. Doubtless, you will be posting shortly on the known reliability issues surrounding the W76/Holbrook warhead?
I have been saying for a while it’s time to go our own way on SLBM, maybe it made sense in the 60’s to use US missile when they were new technology but the technology is pretty dated and simple now. Sharing missiles from a common store will never give you full long term independence and the USA is just too politically erratic to rely on long term.
While the transatlantic alliance may have narrowly survived Trump, Obama and sleepy Joe I can’t see it getting past President AOC or Kanye in the future. Congress has never been anyone’s friend much less the UK’s.
France developed M51 for EUR 4 billion, that’s not that big a deal compared to what we are spending on Dreadnaught and renewal especially if the spending is done in the UK.
The US has a long habit of breaking international treaties when it no longer suits them and all it takes is one more clown in the white-house to a congress with a bee in its bonnet to mock out nuclear collaboration with the UK, exactly what happened in 1946.
Atleast when we originally signed the Trident II deal the UK also operated its own aircraft launched nuclear weapons but now we are entirely reliant on a single system.
Time to change. There is a $1 billion earmarked for Trident II extension which could go to a new design already.
The french were going from a running start as it were with SLBM development. They have the technology and testing equipment for the rockets etc.
While the U.K. could develop a SLBM I don’t think there would be much change out of £15b for the missiles and another £5b for a launcher compartment. Then there’s the testing and getting into service which would be at least 10 years.
The U.K. is going with the common missile compartment for dreadnoughts and that will be using trident 2 and it’s successor. Come 2070 maybe the U.K. won’t need SSBNs or make its own missiles but until then it’s the US missiles.
If really necessary the U.K. could maintain its missiles in house, if for some unbelievable reason the USA cancelled all support. It would need to take the missiles it had on the boats. The warheads etc are fitted in the U.K.
Using the US system is really a win win for all involved. The USA get U.K. funding input to the system and the knowledge of what it’s capable of. The U.K. gets access to missiles for its boats and can hit what it wants or be part of a joined up strike.
Really these weapons don’t ever want to be used. So long as any potential enemy thinks they work and is out off launching there own weapons the deterrent is working.
As it’s likely to be MBDA building the missiles for the UK no reason why we can’t benefit from all the French work on m51. Indeed we might just build a British version of m51. France will sell us IP in a second.
If you know the dimensions for the CMC you can build a missile to fit in it. CMC is being developed independently of trident II manufacturers and it’s designed to accommodate future missiles not just trident II.
If cut off from US supplies on trident II I don’t believe the UK can continue to maintain the missiles longer term a few years at best.
You are certainly right about a UK only deterrent being unable to participate in US lead counter strike offensives however I see this as a positive.
At the moment if China gets into a shooting war with the US then it may as well hit the UK as well because the deterrent systems are fully integrated into a common plan.
I agree completely. Time to do our own thing. I think our friends in the U.S. would support that; they like people who get up and go. Kissinger was all for the British nuclear independent deterrent because he felt it doubled the Soviet’s problem. The same applies to Russia today.
Note: The U.K. spent 11.45 TM in 2021 on foreign aid (a decease), some for nuclear armed Pakistan and India. I am not against foreign aid, just want better focus and audited benefits for both giver and receivers.
Agree
You are very well informed, I enjoyed reading this, thanks
Didn’t know (or even consider) that the Faroes have a Z berth. Does anyone know if this is a new thing ??
Neither did I. I have a list of them. ( and X berths) 😳🙄😆
Nuclear submarines can tie up in commercial ports without issue.
Technically they can Chris but from a practical point of view they generally tie up on a Z berth because it will have the shore supplies that a boat requires and be ‘risk assessed’ as safe for the port/country and for the boat too. I’ve never heard of a boat NOT tying up on a Z berth.
Does Gibraltar and the base in the med the astute boat was at have the Z berth?
I now need to look up Z berth
Here’s a nice article from a website only Scottish people know about.
https://www.secretscotland.org.uk/index.php/Secrets/Z-Berth
Not at all, I’ve persused that many times!
As I’m looking for the building in the photograph at the top of that page.
Yes mate, Souda bay in Crete has one (at least) if that’s where you were thinking. Some in Italy too. They’re basically ‘approved’ for supporting nuke boats with all the facilities required like demin water etc. There are security aspects to it as well but that’s not something I know much about. While we get the spiel about how long boats can stay submerged, how many double decker buses long they are and how many snorkers get eaten etc, they do like a bit of TLC when alongside. They’re supposed to be set up for any nuclear ‘boo boos’ too for safety of the local area and the like. Sorry, not very scientific, going from memory.
Any use ? – https://twitter.com/HMSVenturerRN
Thread drift.
Do we have any Canucks on here?
https://theaviationgeekclub.com/cf-121-redhawk-program-the-true-story-behind-canadas-purchase-of-30-soviet-built-mig-21-fishbed-fighters/
Just finished watching ‘Undeclared war’ and I’ve run out of tin foil – the above is true or mis-information?
On the one hand, it is believable in a denial of rational thought watching Indiana Jones on the other hand, I can’t believe it. Thoughts?
April fool’s
Scroll to the bottom of the article
Speaking of Canada I wonder about the F35 purchase.
They could of got some gripens or super hornets to see them through to tempest or US 6th gen.
The thinking being that Canada needs range on a jet, ability to control drones to help monitor its area.
It also has its nato/forward deployable responsibility which the gripen or SH could of filled nicely.
That does all assume the 6 gen work as advertised and comes in on time🤦🏼♂️
For anyone interested in an excellent in-depth analysis of the background & benefits of the AUKUS programme, from an Australian perspective, watch the following video on YT.
SSN-AUKUS: Australia’s Emergence as a Major Maritime Power of the 21st Century.
https://youtu.be/kYEfmAJBUMI
Warning: It’s 2 hours long.
What is it with these Australians and long videos. Perun already takes an hour of my time each week😂😂😂
It’s a great deal for Australia. They get the best nuclear submarines available from 70 years of nuclear submarine development.
It’s a great deal for the English speaking world. We have to stick together.
Yes! Maybe after the Aussies & Brits finish building 10 boats apiece my Govt 🇮🇪 will order another 10 of the Airfix edition🤣🤣🤣.
Though, now that you have left the EU, we will have to order them from France’s Heller or Italy’s Italieri. Not quite as good as Airfix.
It is also fundamentally flawed. The main purpose of the AUKUS agreement was to allow U.S. and R.N. nuclear submarines to have a base in Australia. At the most optimistic time scale Australia won’t have a sovereign nuclear powered submarine before the middle of the next decade. By the time this Australian nuclear centred fleet arrives sometime in the 2040’s or later, who can say what the international situation will be?
The video does address this issue. Australian military strategists did warn their govt of the need for SSNs 15 years ago and the reasons why. Political inertia and a fear of breaking the nuclear taboo have cost Australia a decade in development and risked it’s security.
The video does relate the time line accurately. However, the headline suggests something very much more rapid is transforming the R.A.N. The west as a whole including Australia was deceived by its own propaganda. Only the United States can react in any way that promises an expeditious course correction. My point merely accepts the video’s own assessment: It will be mid-century before the headline’s optimistic projection could be fulfilled.
It’s safe to assume that by the 2040’s China will either have A collapsed under its own weight (so we don’t need any SSN’s because the west is completely dominant) or two China will be operating the largest navy in human history with the USN a distant second place in which case you will need every SSN you cant get.
Better to build the submarines for the bad scenario and hope for the good scenario.
A volatility is sweeping over western societies at all levels. This makes the foundations of our perceived shared interests vulnerable. Australia will not be immune to this. Hopefully these trends will spread to Russia and China. There are promising signs. But a more febrile world will be more chaotic and therefore dangerous one. The time scale envisaged by the video is unrealistic in the light of known technical advances. This fact applies to all militaries worldwide.
Any further talk on uparming the Rivers B2s or has that been let go? You could pull all 5 forward 40mm guns off the T31s, for room for vls or extra CAMM, and put them on the Rivers for extra punch. And add some containerised missiles/PODs if when needed. All been mentioned before.