In response to a written Parliamentary question, the UK government has reaffirmed its commitment to maintaining a credible nuclear deterrent as part of its obligations to NATO.
The question, raised by Baroness Anelay of St Johns on 2nd September 2024, asked what discussions the UK government had held with NATO allies about the importance of retaining a “minimum credible deterrent” for as long as global conditions require.
The official response came from Lord Coaker, the Minister of State for the Ministry of Defence, on 16th September 2024. Lord Coaker stated:
“Since 1962, the UK has committed its nuclear deterrent to the defence of our NATO allies. The nuclear deterrent deters the most extreme threats to our national security, keeping the UK and our NATO allies safe.”
He further emphasized the ongoing significance of nuclear deterrence within NATO’s overall security framework, quoting the NATO Washington Summit declaration:
“As was made clear in the NATO Washington Summit declaration, nuclear deterrence is the cornerstone of Alliance security.”
Lord Coaker also stressed that NATO and its allies will continue to take actions to enhance deterrence and defence against all threats and challenges, across all domains. He concluded with a clear reaffirmation of the UK government’s stance:
“As the Prime Minister has set out, this Government has an unshakeable commitment to NATO and our nuclear deterrent.”
This is good news. However, I do feel that we need to re-evaluate our continuous at sea deterrent (CASD). The reason for this is based on the conclusion from the recent attacks by Iran and the Houthis, using ballistic missiles against Israel. Bearing in mind that the missiles used did not have multiple independent re-entry vehicles (MIRVs). But were a unitary warhead type, but at least 95% were shot down! To put that in perspective, if a Vanguard unleased 8 Tridents that each carried 8 MIRVs, thereby sending 56 warheads towards a target. Only 3 would make it through a… Read more »
Now, I am no expert on ballistic missiles. But i was of the assumption that a Trident D5 missile and others similar are in a very different class to those fired by Iran and others. And that no defensive system in service anywhere on the planet is capable of intercepting nuclear ballistic missiles or independent warheads. I am happy to be educated by others who know more about this subject.
Correct, it’s been tried and no one has come up with a solution.
Thanks mate 👍
This was my understanding too.
Systems like SM-3, SM-6, Aster, THAAD, S-500 might all be able to have a go at intercepting in the terminal phase, but my understanding was that, as you increase the range and terminal speed of your ballistic missile, the probability of kill for an interceptor rapidly decreases.
They’re lobbing SR/TBM though. Much different to an ICBM. That’s bound to have an effect on interception.
Completely different scenarios and issues. Firstly the Houthi missiles are not too dissimilar to Scuds or even the V2, it’s a big old lump moving towards the target and a hell of a lot slower than a MIRV from a full on SLBM. Put simply the longer the range, the faster and higher the missile and when it deploys its payload they are truly Hypersonic and coming down like a reentry capsule. The missile carries a mixed load of MIRVS and decoys all of which can manoeuvre in flight hence Multiple Independent Re-entry Vehicles. Each target is not very big… Read more »
Mate, you have completely missed the point and the cintext! Previously to the ballistic missile attacks on Israel, only those on Ukraine had been defended against. Even then Ukraine’s primary defence has been Patriot. Their S300 does not have an anti-ballistic missile capability. Patriot although shown to be effective, has a limited engagement ceiling of around 50,000ft or so. The only other publicly recorded interception is by the THAAD system, intercepting a Houthis ballistic missile aimed at the UAE. Previously to the attack on Israel, we thought that endoatmospheric interception would still let quite a few through. Even more so… Read more »
Are you THE DaveyB, or do we have 2 posters with identical IDs?
The DaveyB I know who I consider the SME on many things has more than the few hundred posts you do?
Good spot.
I had to change my email, as it got hacked, which I guess created a new account. Hence why the number of posts aren’t as big as expected. But I do consider myself to be the real deal in that sense.
Cheers for checking
No worries mate.
When you speak, many listen.
Respect.
In a way you, Graham Moore, ABCRodney and DaveyB are the complete set of SMEs.
One for each domain, with you holding the fort for infrastructure and random ORBAT tidbits.
Plenty of others here too mate, but thanks.
Hi DaveyB, nice to know you don’t have an impostor! Our first conversation was about Airlander and HAV (though I had a different name then) and recently I’ve been having another look at the design, specifically for using it as a land/sea based MPA/ anti-submarine patroller. I even went so far as to email their head of sales and ask them what they had considered on the subject. What I want to ask is, what sorts of radar and equipment fit would be best? I don’t know what sorts of capability the radars and other sensors on e.g. the P8s… Read more »
It kind of depends on which variant of Airlander you are going to use. The current Airlander 10 has a relatively small cabin (gondola). It should be able to do all the functions of the P8. The difference really is that the P8 can get to areas faster, whilst the Airlander has a greater persistence over a given area. It’s the larger Airlander 50 that opens up more possibilities. As it can carry a shed load more weight (50t as compared to about 10t) and has a much bigger cabin (200 passengers compared to 40). The cabin could be designed… Read more »
I’ve sent another reply that seems to have been held in the “waiting for approval” purgatory, but in case that doesn’t get through, this is the main idea I had from reading your comment that I thought you might be interested in: Could you build a phased array radar with elements “woven” into the Airlander’s envelope fabric? With no solid structure holding them but held in position by the material itself and the pressure of the gas? I’m imagining a sort of patchwork on the sides and ends of the gas bag, with lots of different bands and roles of… Read more »
What you are considering is what is called a conformal antenna array. These arrays have been used on aircraft since the 1980’s. But there is a limit to what you can do with them. For an active electronically scanned array (AESA) the antenna elements must be at least 1/2 wavelength apart. This is to make sure that the mutual interference doesn’t cause self interference, where one transmitting element’s emission are received by those elements surrounding it. The mutual interference is needed to electronically form a beam, where the timing or phases of each transmitted lobe is added together to create… Read more »
‘The context is that MIRVs and singular re-entry vehicles are no longer guaranteed to penetrate air defences even when falling and maneuvering at hypersonic speeds, as air defence systems are getting better in their capabilities.’ The missiles being fired by Iran and the Houthis, or even those being built for anti-ship duties in China, are not comparable to a Trident D5. The YJ-21 is believed to hit Mach 10 in its cruise stage, dropping down as it impacts. This is fast, but still interceptable in the terminal phase by systems like SM-6. Trident D5 will do over Mach 20 on… Read more »