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.
I agree, it’s about time we developed our own missiles, the US is no longer reliable
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.
Because they aren’t as capable. Its also a myth that French development costs are lower. The 2nd ship of the current carrier was cancelled due cost over runs and repeated failures during sea trails.
No. And again, list where French are less capable.
Cheese.. contrary to the complete and utter delusion state of the the French public your Brie is far far inferior to Somerset Brie.. just saying 🧀🇬🇧
Compete in aerospace? When did uk sold a Britain made fighter jet by hundred s?
F-35,, Euro fighter Typhoon?
French costs are low because they have less capability.
Arianegroupe and carrying nukes under rafale do not sound less capable. So, less capable in what exactly?
Here’s your problem. You think the Rafale is going to get close
Close to what?
There’s this thing air defence
Ok, if you can’t be explicit and just capable of being sarcastic, better not replying.
A Rafale launching an ASMPA from several hundred kilometres away is far more plausible than an F-35A dropping a B61-12 from a few tens of kilometres away at most. The ASMPA would also be far harder to intercept than a free falling B61! Ultimately the French air launched deterrent isn’t intended for strategic use, it’s intended to give them an intermediate option between conventional and strategic nuclear weapons.
As for French aerospace vs British, France still produces its own fighters, bizjets, airliners (ATR jointly, and major share in Airbus), helicopters (much of the helicopter arm of Airbus is French). In contrast, in Britain the only really British aircraft we’ve produced lately has been the Lynx Wildcat, which is really a heavily updated 1960s/70s design.
There is a grain of truth to that.
Part of the issue in UK is gold plating specifications. So we have the perfect platform in tiny numbers.
IRL the French platforms have perfectly adequate overmatch to Russian junk.
There does come a point where sustaining mass, both of platforms and people, is a credible objective in itself.
Meanwhile in the real world there no point on spending money on equipment that can’t do its job. See the Russian armed forces for details
You conveniently ignored my point about the overmatch that French kit has over Russian junk.
There is little point in doing what we often do which is an exquisite R&D project that is pushing the boundaries of the possible and buying tiny numbers.
Ask the Indians how their Rafales worked out
Well, they say it worked perfectly and just order 114 of them.
Totally agree. We do not need to suddenly drop US missiles but we should be now working on our own. Gradually learning and developing over a number of years. Then when we are confident they work as well (or better) than trident then we can swap over.
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.
And just where do you intend to get a satellite navigation system from?
Ron you do realise SLBMs don’t use satellite navigation.
The submarine knows where it is by internal Inertial Navigation Systems.
When the SLBM is fired the post boost vehicle ( the spaceship that carries the MIRVs) then uses stellar navigation to map its own course and drop its MIRVS..
Yet another armchair expert. The only reason why satellite navigation exists to provide correction to the gyros on boats. You can hit anything with a missile if your fix is 20 miles out.
Very much depends on your drift rate and I bet good money a modern RN system has a drift rate of better than 1 mile every 100 days+ which means it’s very likely modern INS on our ballistic missile subs are GPS independent.. unless your looking for a CEP that does not matter on a second strike capability ( because stellar navigation can do a lot of work)
AND You can use other methods to correct that drift rate beyond GPS.. gps is just the most convenient and risk free evolution.
Finally the whole point of the RNs investment in Quantum navigating methods is within a few years it will essentially remove drift completely..
It’s a funny thing that you can actually learn things in an armchair.. essentially if your willing to read the open source seminal papers on subjects.. when I learnt to navigate I did it via a book sitting in an armchair first.. before I went sailing into the ogin..
With the quantum navigation stuff, I do wonder whether sticking a nuclear warhead in some sort of extended range CETUS could be a useful thing to hold over Putin’s head, also China has some nice big coastal cities… Might be cheaper than a ballistic missile programme and force their submarine forces onto the back foot a little hunting for them.
More sensibly, solid rocket motors are about the only thing our industry can’t do, it is unbecoming of us as a nation to be so dependent.
I thought it was specifically medium to large solid rocket motors that the UK can’t currently produce? Also I read a suggestion that one of the objectives of the Nightfall SRBM was to build that industrial capability? I’ve never been involved in that field myself and don’t know much about so I’d be interested in more informed opinions on this.
Yet again. If you fix is out at the launch point your CEP drops. You falsely claimed that you don’t need one and now are desperately trying to justify your position
‘Ron you do realise SLBMs don’t use satellite navigation.’
He might. But it wouldn’t suit is argument.
They don’t use satellite navigation!
Of for god sake man. The whole reason why GPS exists is to give drift correction for SINs on the boats.
Yes because in the 70s the drift rate was not great.. at best 1 mile a day drift.. that’s not now and it’s most definitely not in a few years when INS drift will be for all intent and human purpose gone..
Meanwhile in the real world the most accurate gyros in existence are on the boats. Laser ring gyros were specifically developed for navigation system of D5 and yet they still drift. Turns out that over 200 day patrols you need correction. You don’t know what you are talking about and you are desperately trying to justify a factually incorrect statement
Ron, do you have some special insight into or experience of ballistic missile guidance systems? Just yes or no, not asking to reveal any secrets. If not, Jonathan’s word means just as much as yours does and he’s being a lot more measured and reasonable than you are.
There’s no particular reason why we need the US to provide GPS to our submarines, the French seem to manage and they’re quite a lot friendlier at the moment.
Well I have been in the nav centre on Resolution.
Ron resolution had a 1970s and 1980s SINS.. yes she would have needed GPS.. please your argument is based on 40 year old INS not now and not future.
You’re a cretin Ron 🤡🤣 Just useless gibberish at best 🥱
Drift rate of the very best operational systems is about 0.025 miles per day.. that’s what we know. They are probably now better because the last couple of years has seen some serious improvement in INS.
They are also replacing the us of Kalman filtering with AI based filters as (artificial neural network (ANN)) well which will make another significant jump in reducing drift.
Bitch and insult all you want.
GPS was required when INS had a drift rate of 1 mile a day that’s historically true .it is now at about 1 mile per hundred days at the very edge and it will make exponential leaps again over the next few years.. within a decade drift will not exist.. that’s the real world not history.
And your comment the fact we would need GPS to develop a replacement for our present deterrent.. so something that will deployed in at least a decade.. so you are talking about and using the limits on decades old tec..not what can be used in the late 2020s and 2030s.
You are a lair
Ok Ron if I am a lying then all the latest journals articles on INS are because I get my information from respected journal articles.
Just to confirm because you’ve pissed me off calling me a lair
The RN with imperial college have published on the 18th Dec 2025 that they used a quantum SINS that was completely GPS independent.. the RN have published they have one.. the USN have been doing the same work..
artificial neural network (ANN) Filtering over just traditional Kalman filtering is again widely reported in even reducing the drift in civilian INRs
So don’t call me a lair…
Maybe he was accusing you of being a Scottish lord but he pressed enter before finishing the message?
Can’t spell, can’t argue, just more textual diarrhoea from Ron, the missile “expert” 🤡🤣
There are two options: Stick with Trident and risk getting cut off, or build our own.
We will have to build our own one day. Now seems to be a good point at which to begin.
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.
It’s not a matter of capability; it’s a matter of perception. MAD worked with massive overkill; somehow a major economic power bloc (Europe + UK) needs to be SEEN to match the other power blocks to be taken seriously.
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.
If you have conventional/ nuke capable launch vehicle the other side may mistake for a nuke attack.
Russia has them and is happily throwing them around.. infact it has
A set of cruise missiles that can be both nuclear and conventional
Short range ballistic Missiles that can be both nuclear and conventional
IRBMs that are both nuclear and conventional
Strategic bombers that are both nuclear and conventional..
The reality is.. nobody would know if France was making a conventional strike or sub strategic nuclear strike if it launched aircraft from its carrier.. every just assumes France is not stupid.
The reality is it’s not the weapon type per say it’s the attack profile and numbers.. nobody is going to first strike with their strategic deterrent because you launched an IRBM or 20 cruise missiles at a random military target or hub, on the other hand the saw large numbers of IRBMs and and cruise missiles as well as bomber intrusions all at the same time going for key strategic nodes in their strategic defence.. they may decide your going for a first strike and trigger their deterrent..
Hi Jonathan, good reply. UK, it could be suggested, UK in fairly unique position of not being able to make a nuclear attack apart from sub launched ballistic missiles, an adversary would understand a uk conventional attack was just that and not nuclear. I think the uk nuclear posture is in the sweet spot. Happy to leave tactical and land, sea air variety of delivery systems to other countries to decide for themselves. Unfortunately no one wins even a moderate exchange of nukes, it would bring on a nuclear winter.
Reportedly Iran fired a ballistic missile recently that landed near Diego Garcia. That’s 4500km from Iran, London is 4400…
If they can do it, so can we.
Sorry to burst the bubble somewhat on that plan, but the current warheads are recycled to provide nuclear material for future weapons. Weapon-grade materials are extremely expensive and hard to produce, you really don’t want to be adding more cost onto the deterrent if possible.
Sorry to burst everyone’s bubble, but the UK lacks the space and strategic depth to sustain a land based nuclear deterrent. An SSGN off the coast could take it out with ease in a quick draw decapitation strike
Not if it’s on mobile, distributed launchers.. Russia would need profoundly good ISTAR.. agree no point building a silo based system..
It would be better to have an air launched cruise missile just as the French have.
Excellent points 👍🏾
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.
It would honestly not surprise me if all this Europe has failed us is not a smoke screen for an action against Greenland.. I honestly think the nutter may go for it.
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.
Add a nought. You have to have a satellite navigation system to provide correction to the gyro drift.
Not in the future Ron call me a lair ( again ) if you want.. but it’s the RN that says it’s got a quantum SINS that is GPS independent not me…
Ron’s a pathetic old fart who has no idea what he’s gibbering about 🙄
It’s only ‘A fraction of the crackpot Chagos deal’ if you add up 100 years of the Chagos deal at each year’s cash value, including an assumption for future inflation then treat it as though it is cash we need to find next week.
Incidentally – (I’m not a fan of the deal and would prefer us not to bei doing it, if that were possible) there was an interesting interview on one of the Telegraph podcasts recently – Battleground, I think – with a former Government advisor who said the deal came about due to pressure from the US who wanted a guarantee of long term access to Diego Garcia!
The UK is too chicken s**t to send its armed forces to defend its bases, forces, and citizens in the Mediterranean and the Gulf but somehow is going to become a self-sufficient nuclear power who the world is going to respect. All of this while militant Islamists take over the country and its elected politicians cower in fear hoping that by aiding them, they will somehow be spared. Pathetic.
RAF are literally over there flying missions defending British interests. We have a joint Qatar/UK TYPHOON squadron and more F35Bs and typhoons operating out of RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus. They have literally shot down loads of drones and missiles in the last weeks. You obviously have not been keeping up. And are incidentally talking Rubbish.
We have more air power in the middle East ATM than we have had for 15 years. So where did you get that from?
Lee we cannot decide if this guy is a Russian/Chinese politic warfare bot or mouth breathing MAGA loving anglophobic… but either way he’s a prat.
Another Russian bot
Pathetic sums up you and your righttrash delusions perfectly 👌🏾🤡
Ron loves sniffing Fartage and Trumps’ foul effluent 🤮 The fumes have got to his tiny brain
Pkcasimir is a raving gammon 🐷😂
Pkcasimir is a raving gammon 🐷😂
Don’t be a racist.
If we were to collaborate with the french on any nuclear project, then we’d be best doing so with air-launched cruise missiles rather than SLBMs. Trident works, and we have decades of alignment still planned with the US and Australia. Going with the french at this point makes no sense.
I’m not saying we should get back into the air-launched nukes game, just saying that it would be the Anglo-French nuclear Collab that makes most sense.
My gut is in the end if we want a long term credible deterrent it will all depend on which way we go geopolitically… there are 4 options.
1) MAGA calms the hell down and the US put greater democratic checks and balances in place against Presidents going rogue, western hegemony is restored.. China and Russia goes fuck it and we continue the way we had with the west as a single power group.. we can keep our deterrent as is.
2) MAGA grows worse and the EU and MAGA US essentially become geopolitical opponents, the UK picks the MAGA side and aligns with the US.. keeping a US based deterrent.
3) MAGA grown worse and the EU and US become opponents, the UK aligns with Europe.. at that point Europe will be looking for a unified deterrent.
4) MAGA grows worse and the US and EU split, the UK tries a neutral path.. with an ever present Russia.. this would need to be an armed neutrality ( massively armed ) and we would need our own deterrent
Now I would prefer 1 ( with all my heart ) but I think the US EU relationship is utterly and completely broken and the US is heading to a dark place, I think this will mean the EU has no choice but to have far greater alignment.. and sadly I think the UK will need to pick its bucket of sick.. unless it feel it can be one alone or form its own, none aligned alliance ( Canada, Iceland, Norway in the north and may Australia New Zealand and Japan from a distance)…
For me the reports that Denmark actually prepared for the invasion of Greenland and the present actions of the US pretty much indicate the that US European NATO is dead and the US just wants essentially client states.
We should build our own missile not relient on the US or France. That way we will ensure our sovereign capability. We are already looking into ballistic missiles for Ukraine so we have the skill.
A cheaper option would be to keep trident, and supplement it with a UK-developed bomb that would be dropped by Tempest. That way we would have two strike methods with one of them being 100% within our control.
With the M51, we could buy-in full rights and have a UK-specific version. As it is, the government aren’t willing to bite the bullet and accept that the US is no longer a trustworthy partner (obviously it could be argued it has never truly been, but hey). It would take a major development to force the government’s hand, eg Trump announcing and end to the missile lease deal, even if not an immediate one.
Ultimately I think we might be better served by buying into M51 and the ASN4G. Heck, if you wanted to go full “belt and braces”, you could even do a nuclear-capable SLCM, which could then be fitted to Astute & Barracuda (and AUKUS if it ever happens). That way you’d go from having eight SSBNs (4 French + 4 UK) to those eight plus at least a dozen more nuclear-capable SSN/SSGNs!
Trident failed in like it’s 4 latest tests..
Well of course we are sticking with the US system. With so many corrupt MP’s and civil servants being paid to support the US system, and alternative was never on the cards.
These are the same MP’s that take regular back handers from the Israeli gas it’s hardly surprising
But there really is one question I must ask.
How do these UK officials measure reliability in a system that in reality is NEVER tested. It’s another confidence trick by those officials who have expanding back pockets.
It has been tested, the last twice the missile nearly obliterated the submarine that fired it, fortunately without it’s nuclear warhead.
The yanks are not unreliable they are our enemy. Sorry but this has gone far to far to say anything else. They are committing genocide in Cuba and now Iran deliberately starving people to death in the way the Nazis did in the ghettos of Warsaw. They are targeting civilians and civilians infrastructure, hospitals, schools, power in the same way the Russians are. The USA should not have anything to do with our defence any more not equipment supply, not nuclear weapons design or maintenance, not the use of airbases or any other base on UK territory. I have watched today as several Hercules have left mildenhall, this can only really mean one thing, they are planning a parachute drop on Iran from our bases
The whole point of defence and security is to develop your own capability and not rely on others and the french would be even worse than America.