My Trident or yours?

uk 75

uk 75

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
27 September 2006
Messages
6,383
Reaction score
6,747
One of the classic British justifications in the pub/bar rather than Parliament or Whitehall is that Russia cannot tell whether a Trident missile launch is British or American? This means that we can drag the US into oblivion with us.
Polaris served for some time with the US using it too but once it was replaced with Poseidon could the Russians tell the difference?
The pub discussion usually ends with "as long as it can reach Paris". Of course the French SLBM cannot imitate a Trident (or can it?) but it can reach London so we are all doomed anyway.
Joking apart how true are these pub tales?
 
In my understanding each missile tends to have certain unique characteristics of flight.
Which is why certain chaps be likely pouring over the data acquired on the recent Russian missile use against Ukraine.
 
uk 75 said:
One of the classic British justifications in the pub/bar rather than Parliament or Whitehall is that Russia cannot tell whether a Trident missile launch is British or American? This means that we can drag the US into oblivion with us.
Polaris served for some time with the US using it too but once it was replaced with Poseidon could the Russians tell the difference?
The pub discussion usually ends with "as long as it can reach Paris". Of course the French SLBM cannot imitate a Trident (or can it?) but it can reach London so we are all doomed anyway.
Joking apart how true are these pub tales?
Click to expand...
Different missile flight paths due to different ranges, and different engine power levels.

At launch, the rocket exhaust will be emitting energy based on rate of acceleration and weight of missile. Do a little fancy computation based on received energy and you will know how heavy the missile is (this is also why it's impossible to have a decoy for a spaceship under thrust that is lighter than the ship it is trying to simulate). Knowing how heavy the missile is will tell you which general class a missile is (Polaris, Poseidon, Trident 1, Trident 2).

Where you detect the launch coming from can also suggest what type of missile it is. Polaris missiles are going to be launching from much shorter distances away than Tridents, so a launch from the Baltic Sea or Arctic Ocean close to Finland is much more suggestive of a Polaris than Trident. But an Ohio or Vanguard could have snuck up to the Arctic and thrown some depressed-trajectory shots at relatively close targets instead of staying out in more open waters and used the huge range advantage. But a depressed-trajectory shot is much shorter range and lower apogee than a standard ballistic flight, so you'd see that on the radars.
 
uk 75 said:
One of the classic British justifications in the pub/bar rather than Parliament or Whitehall is that Russia cannot tell whether a Trident missile launch is British or American? This means that we can drag the US into oblivion with us.
Polaris served for some time with the US using it too but once it was replaced with Poseidon could the Russians tell the difference?
The pub discussion usually ends with "as long as it can reach Paris". Of course the French SLBM cannot imitate a Trident (or can it?) but it can reach London so we are all doomed anyway.
Joking apart how true are these pub tales?
Click to expand...
You have quite different pub conversations than me, clearly.
 
Scott Kenny said:
At launch, the rocket exhaust will be emitting energy based on rate of acceleration and weight of missile. Do a little fancy computation based on received energy and you will know how heavy the missile is (this is also why it's impossible to have a decoy for a spaceship under thrust that is lighter than the ship it is trying to simulate). Knowing how heavy the missile is will tell you which general class a missile is (Polaris, Poseidon, Trident 1, Trident 2).
Click to expand...
You also know that an Annihilator missile stage burns for 69 seconds, whereas an Eviscerator missile stage burns for 84 seconds. Or whatever the real numbers are. Some tolerance on that of course, depending on trajectory and random variation, but if it's still burning at 80 seconds you can be pretty sure it's an Eviscerator.
Scott Kenny said:
But an Ohio or Vanguard could have snuck up to the Arctic and thrown some depressed-trajectory shots at relatively close targets instead of staying out in more open waters and used the huge range advantage. But a depressed-trajectory shot is much shorter range and lower apogee than a standard ballistic flight, so you'd see that on the radars.
Click to expand...
You can also, technically, do a lobbed trajectory for short range. Launch to a higher apogee than normal and come straight back down, with a very long flight time. I wouldn't be entirely surprised if there were some target sets where a near-vertical RV trajectory was useful.
 
Considering that the only value of nuclear weapons is a deterrent, a cynical observer might conclude that, since they are never going to be used and nuclear tests are no longer carried out, it is not really necessary for this very expensive material to be real, it is enough that it should look like it and thus eliminate the enormous costs of maintenance and renovation.

They might even agree with the "enemy" to keep the fiction at a fraction of the expense.
 
Justo Miranda said:
Considering that the only value of nuclear weapons is a deterrent, a cynical observer might conclude that, since they are never going to be used and nuclear tests are no longer carried out, it is not really necessary for this very expensive material to be real, it is enough that it should look like it and thus eliminate the enormous costs of maintenance and renovation.

They might even agree with the "enemy" to keep the fiction at a fraction of the expense.
Click to expand...
But it needs to look like it in all respects.
You need to have all the places necessary to make the HEU or plutonium (you can also use them to make regular reactor fuel). You need to have the missiles that have openly tested to whatever range you want to claim. You need to have all the security and security theater those weapons need to have.

So at this point, actually making them go boom is a footnote in costs.


Halcyon66 said:
www.dailymail.co.uk

Britain 'must prepare in case Trump pulls support for Trident' nukes

The UK has its own nuclear warheads but fits them to American-made and maintained Trident ballistic missiles carried in the Royal Navy's Vanguard Class submarines.
www.dailymail.co.uk www.dailymail.co.uk

Could shake things up?
Click to expand...
Would be very difficult, since the French missiles are larger diameter (IIRC too much larger to fit in the existing tubes), as well as needing all new guidance and other bits.
 
Changing silos is likely easiest just Changing the missile compartment.

But in the wider context the UK could stand up support for Trident domestically. The biggest hurdle is supply of the rocket fuel, but we can build the press in fairly short order.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Would be very difficult, since the French missiles are larger diameter (IIRC too much larger to fit in the existing tubes), as well as needing all new guidance and other bits.
Click to expand...
Time to break out the old S-45 blueprints? Though it would likely need some further work to fit the SLBM role.
 
Last edited:
zen said:
Changing silos is likely easiest just Changing the missile compartment.
Click to expand...
Except that the rest of the submarine is designed around a 43ft/13.1m diameter pressure hull. So the SNLE 3G missile compartment can't be used directly unless the French designed it to 13.1m beam.

And redesigning roughly half the ship by mass from scratch will not be quick.

Now.

It might be possible to change the missile tubes themselves, I think they're not actually welded to the hull but are attached via locking rings, seal with polished surfaces and o-rings. It may be possible to install larger diameter tubes into the existing locking rings.

You'd still need to check the weight of the M51 missiles and their new tubes.


zen said:
But in the wider context the UK could stand up support for Trident domestically. The biggest hurdle is supply of the rocket fuel, but we can build the press in fairly short order.
Click to expand...
Still need all the navigational bits, too. I don't know if the UK has inertial nav systems good enough to stand for ballistic missile guidance.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Except that the rest of the submarine is designed around a 43ft/13.1m diameter pressure hull. So the SNLE 3G missile compartment can't be used directly unless the French designed it to 13.1m beam.
Click to expand...
Oh I was talking about the tubes in a compartment built around Dreadnoughts existing diameter.
Scott Kenny said:
And redesigning roughly half the ship by mass from scratch will not be quick.
Click to expand...
True but on the flipside Dreadnought design is fully digital and embodies lots of lessons learned.
Arguably a backup design adjusted for M51 tubes ought to have been run concurrently.
Scott Kenny said:
It might be possible to change the missile tubes themselves, I think they're not actually welded to the hull but are attached via locking rings, seal with polished surfaces and o-rings. It may be possible to install larger diameter tubes into the existing locking rings.

You'd still need to check the weight of the M51 missiles and their new tubes.
Click to expand...
Cludging the tubes into the built compartments 'might' be easy. A whole lot of devils lurk in the details of that.
Scott Kenny said:
Still need all the navigational bits, too. I don't know if the UK has inertial nav systems good enough to stand for ballistic missile guidance.
Click to expand...
? Explain? Be you suggesting M51 needs better inertial navigation input than Trident?
 
zen said:
True but on the flipside Dreadnought design is fully digital and embodies lots of lessons learned.
Arguably a backup design adjusted for M51 tubes ought to have been run concurrently.
Click to expand...
Why would they, since there's a very solid treaty between the US and UK regarding nuclear sharing and a backup design using M51 would require negotiating such a treaty?

Unless France is a LOT more forthcoming with details of their nuclear weapons than the US is...


zen said:
Cludging the tubes into the built compartments 'might' be easy. A whole lot of devils lurk in the details of that.
Click to expand...
All the supporting systems are already in the built compartment, you'd just need to reroute some of them. Water drains, N2 pressurization, etc.


zen said:
? Explain? Be you suggesting M51 needs better inertial navigation input than Trident?
Click to expand...
No, just DIFFERENT.

The nav and guidance systems for Trident are US supplied. So a US-free SSBN would need the M51-specific nav and guidance systems installed.
 
Scott Kenny said:
there's a very solid treaty between the US and UK
Click to expand...
Popular trust in the US honouring its treaty obligations is hovering around zero in the UK currently. Bear in mind that the Daily Mail is as right-wing as UK papers get, and naturally tends towards the US as a shining example of what conservatism should be - if they're now doubting the US....
 
DWG said:
Popular trust in the US honouring its treaty obligations is hovering around zero in the UK currently. Bear in mind that the Daily Mail is as right-wing as UK papers get, and naturally tends towards the US as a shining example of what conservatism should be - if they're now doubting the US....
Click to expand...
Not disagreeing, though I hope someone smacks the POTUS about what happens when people doubt the US government's willingness to abide by promises.

Also, another forum I used to hang out on called it the Daily Fail, for how often they got things wrong. And that was an extremely conservative forum by US standards.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Why would they, since there's a very solid treaty between the US and UK regarding nuclear sharing and a backup design using M51 would require negotiating such a treaty?
Click to expand...
Frankly the UK should never have placed itself in the position of relying on any ally sticking to it's treaty obligations. As a consistently form advocate of possessing as much independence as possible. I've never been happy with the current situation or this concept of a backup plan of switching our singular reliance on the US to France or any other ally.
Scott Kenny said:
All the supporting systems are already in the built compartment, you'd just need to reroute some of them. Water drains, N2 pressurization, etc.
Click to expand...
That's where the details count and life has a habit of revealing that to move one cable or pipe a few inches in any direction can cause a cascade of changes that spiral out of control.
Scott Kenny said:
No, just DIFFERENT.
Click to expand...
Yes this could be a problem. Details and devils again.
 
zen said:
Frankly the UK should never have placed itself in the position of relying on any ally sticking to it's treaty obligations. As a consistently form advocate of possessing as much independence as possible. I've never been happy with the current situation or this concept of a backup plan of switching our singular reliance on the US to France or any other ally.
Click to expand...
Considering that the UK now has a percapita GDP that is less than half that of Ireland, I think there are more pressing social concerns than maintaining the last vestiges of "great power" status. Britain owes a permanent seat on the UN Security Council and strategic deterrent to its relative importance in 1945, not Britain's current position in 2025.

Trident obligations will continue to be honored by the United States as long as Britain's foreign policy doesn't greatly diverge from that of the United States. It makes economic sense to maintain collaboration on Trident and the risks of Britain's independent deterrent have been minimal in past years. However if Britain very hypothetically adopted a policy of escalation and brinksmanship while the United States pursued descalation and peace, I could see a potential crisis leading to a reappraisal of Britain's participation in Trident. However, that scenario is far less likely than continued cooperation.
 
The Trident deterrent is very much tied to the criteria of the Cold War targetting of Moscow. Both it and Polaris made sense as a means of warning the Soviet Union that it did not just face US nuclear weapons.
After the Cold War it has continued to permit the RN to work closely with the USN in providing a potential nuclear response.
All depends on how much the USN values that relationship. Without it, the UK must look to France or as PM Macmillan admitted back in 1962 admit that it could no longer afford a nuclear deterrent.
 
zen said:
Oh I was talking about the tubes in a compartment built around Dreadnoughts existing diameter.

True but on the flipside Dreadnought design is fully digital and embodies lots of lessons learned.
Arguably a backup design adjusted for M51 tubes ought to have been run concurrently.

Cludging the tubes into the built compartments 'might' be easy. A whole lot of devils lurk in the details of that.

? Explain? Be you suggesting M51 needs better inertial navigation input than Trident?
Click to expand...
Realistically, adoption of the M51 instead of Trident would have involved a lot more French lead "cooperation," perhaps even a shared deterrent. On the face of it, it would be a lot cheaper for France and the UK to share a common fleet of SSBNs based in the old German U-boat pens at Brest. Say, 2 UK funded hulls and 3 French, probably with the adoption of French practices as they seem to have a higher operational tempo for submarines than the UK.

In reality, Britain is now on its 3rd generation SSBN program and every time the French option has been quickly rejected. I'd argue that the financial and technical merits of French collaboration have been outweighed by the issues involving diplomacy and Britain's false national self image as an equal partner in the "Special Relationship." Sadly, we Americans tend to humor the British in this delusion while the French are too proud and altogether too blunt to play along.

Personally, I'm just as happy to see the UK bear a portion of the Trident program. While I don't believe than 4 British SSBNs are as effective a deterrent as any 4 American SSBNs, or possibly even 4 French SSBNs, the British contribution is in addition to our own and not at the expense of it. However, if it ever comes down to another Suez Crisis, but on a strategic level, it might be time to demand a 2 key solution.
 
Arjen said:
That is where it gets tricky these days.
Click to expand...
Not as tricky as you think: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2025/03/07/uk-aid-cut-defense-spending/

I can see substantial convergence in actual policies despite divergent rhetoric. Two leaders have come to the same conclusion - cutting foreign aid - most likely with totally different ideologies and justifications. Basically the same conclusion based on the same global realities. This is why the UK's Trident participation will almost certainly continue for decades to come.
 
TinWing
I have tried to stay off the political and I'd ask you the same curtesy.
There be other forums for that.
What I have said is a solid principle and an aim all states should seek generally.

Frankly it is irrelevant what GDP, and such headline figures hide multiple sins.

Where we can agree is that Anglo-French cooperation, which is increasing, is an efficient and rational behaviour for Europe's two currently nuclear armed states. Regularly this is examined.

And so it is a reasonable question concerning the alternatives, which do include France.
 
@TinWing I was thinking more of divergence on NATO Article 5, Ukraine, Canada as 51st state, Greenland, Mar-a-Gaza, tariffs. Article 5 in particular touches on what nuclear deterrence is about, which is quite relevant to this thread.
 
Last edited:
zen said:
TinWing
I have tried to stay off the political and I'd ask you the same curtesy.
There be other forums for that.
What I have said is a solid principle and an aim all states should seek generally.

Frankly it is irrelevant what GDP, and such headline figures hide multiple sins.

Where we can agree is that Anglo-French cooperation, which is increasing, is an efficient and rational behaviour for Europe's two currently nuclear armed states. Regularly this is examined.

And so it is a reasonable question concerning the alternatives, which do include France.
Click to expand...
Independence is a fine universal principal, especially in the sense of the self determination of domestic policy. Independence of action in terms of military operations, and especially strategic deference, by former European colonial powers should be a matter of careful introspection. It's worth remembering relative small numbers of Europeans created centuries of global mayhem before two European lead World Wars generally curtailed colonialism and imperialism. Our current peaceful world order is entirely an American creation, one that Stalin played along with in the closing days of WWII, while Britain and the rest of Europe was essentially prostrate from a self inflicted, European initiated conflict.

Anglo-French cooperation is always going to be a fraught issue, if only because France is a much larger and more populous nation with a more independent domestic military-industrial base. The French are generally a very self aware people and make note of the size and industral capability gap between themselves and Britain, and thus demand to take the lead. This is why the French option has been quickly rejected over three successive generations.

The Suez Crisis was truly the final end of British independence of action. At the time, Eisenhauer's snubbing of Britain in particular was a bit controversial. Seen from the standpoint of the Camp David Accords of over 2 decades later, it was the right call. Egypt was brought into the western fold peacefully but if Anglo-Frence intervention had continued, and invitably failed, Egypt would have fallen firmly into the Soviet Camp and would have remained there until the end of the Cold War.

At the current moment, we're nowhere near a Suez Crisis moment, but something akin to it is an outside possibility. It's decades too late for Britain to revisit the verdict of the Second World War and Suez.
 
Last edited:
Arjen said:
@TinWing I was thinking more of divergence on NATO Article 5, Ukraine, Canada as 51st state, Greenland, Mar-a-Gaza, tariffs. Article 5 in particular touches on what nuclear deterrence is about, which is quite relevant to this thread.
Click to expand...
In all seriousness, many of the supposed controversies you mentioned stem from rhetorical devices, not concrete proposals. Canada, Greenland and Panama have nothing to worry about aside from the comedic fallout.

There are broader philosophical issues about the dangers of strictly observing treaties instead of pursuing more peaceful and pragmatic objectives. The downfall of the British Empire was the strict observance of treaties in 1914 and 1939. Article 5 only came into effect in 2001 and for Afghanistan in particular. We all know how that story ended after nearly 2 decades of conflict. Not exactly a glowing success but fortunately the stakes were low, unlike a return to a Cold War.
 
Article 5 and tariffs are rather fundamental. With the current transactional nature of US foreign policy, a US reappraisal of Britain's participation in Trident is not quite as unlikely as it used to be.
 
TinWing said:
Considering that the UK now has a percapita GDP that is less than half that of Ireland, I think there are more pressing social concerns than maintaining the last vestiges of "great power" status. Britain owes a permanent seat on the UN Security Council and strategic deterrent to its relative importance in 1945, not Britain's current position in 2025.
Click to expand...

TinWing said:
Independence is a fine universal principal, especially in the sense of the self determination of domestic policy.
Click to expand...
Upto this point we ne in agreement. However.....
TinWing said:
Independence of action in terms of military operations, and especially strategic deference, by former European colonial powers should be a matter of careful introspection.
Click to expand...
At this point we diverge.
TinWing said:
Our current peaceful world order is entirely an American creation,
Click to expand...
It is certainly an American creation. But it has been anything but peaceful.

And at that I will leave this, and focus on the topic. Since going further strays too far.
 
TinWing said:
Considering that the UK now has a percapita GDP that is less than half that of Ireland, I think there are more pressing social concerns than maintaining the last vestiges of "great power" status.
Click to expand...

Irish GDP per Capita is greatly overvalued due to being a tax-haven.

In comparison to France, Britain has both a larger population and higher GDP per capita, so an all-UK replacement for Trident is within its means.
 
zen said:
Frankly the UK should never have placed itself in the position of relying on any ally sticking to it's treaty obligations. As a consistently form advocate of possessing as much independence as possible.
Click to expand...
Agreed. It's a very poor idea to completely rely on another country for parts of your military equipment. Especially nuclear.


zen said:
That's where the details count and life has a habit of revealing that to move one cable or pipe a few inches in any direction can cause a cascade of changes that spiral out of control.
Click to expand...
Possibly. Depends on how weird the French engineers were in how they set up their tubes. It's also possible that they ended up with convergent evolution to the American design.


zen said:
Yes this could be a problem. Details and devils again.
Click to expand...
Exactly.
 
Decoupling the UK nuclear deterrent from the US after over 60 years of close cooperation between the RN and USN would need a fresh look at what the UK wanted its nuclear force to look like.

Once a UK missile no longer looks like a US one when it leaves the water we will have lost a major part of its deterrent effect.

Any substitute system whether wholly UK or Anglo French would have to answer the question "Does it actually deter a likely opponent?"

For the immediate future we are talking about Russia rather than China, N Korea or Iran since it is now a clear and present danger.

Russia retains an impressive arsenal of ground, air and sea launched nuclear systems which could be used either for limited strikes or the total annihilation of the UK.

Detering a range of nuclear threats without the US backing us requires more than the ability to erase Moscow and St Petersburg. But what targets and how many could the UK realiistically strike on its own or with France?

(I still trust in the US Navy to do their utmost to keep the link with the RN but we are looking here at what happens in the worst case)
 
TinWing said:
In all seriousness, many of the supposed controversies you mentioned stem from rhetorical devices, not concrete proposals. Canada, Greenland and Panama have nothing to worry about aside from the comedic fallout.

There are broader philosophical issues about the dangers of strictly observing treaties instead of pursuing more peaceful and pragmatic objectives. The downfall of the British Empire was the strict observance of treaties in 1914 and 1939. Article 5 only came into effect in 2001 and for Afghanistan in particular. We all know how that story ended after nearly 2 decades of conflict. Not exactly a glowing success but fortunately the stakes were low, unlike a return to a Cold War.
Click to expand...
The Canadians don’t regard it as remotely comedic. There’s real concern in Ottawa.
 
UK75 those be good questions and I think the closest answer we can find is the French approach. Though I suspect both French and UK arsenals likely need expansion.
What might alter the thought processes, is the increasing likelihood of the Scandinavians developing their own deterrent.
 
I have to admit, I can't believe that expansion of nuclear arsenals, after the end of the Cold War and the increasing globalisation of the world economy, is something that could potential be considered. I'm old enough to remember the fall of The Wall and the optimism of the 90's. How far we've fallen since then...... I genuinely fear for the future world my daughter will inherit.
 
Arjen said:
Vertrouwen komt te voet, gaat te paard - Dutch saying.

Trust arrives on foot, departs on horseback.
Click to expand...
Doveryai, no proveryai (Trust but verify) - Ronald Reagan ;)

I also like Gorbachev's matching quote of Ralph Waldo Emerson - "the reward of a thing well done is to have done it."
 
scautomoton said:
I have to admit, I can't believe that expansion of nuclear arsenals, after the end of the Cold War and the increasing globalisation of the world economy, is something that could potential be considered. I'm old enough to remember the fall of The Wall and the optimism of the 90's. How far we've fallen since then...... I genuinely fear for the future world my daughter will inherit.
Click to expand...
I was crew on a missile sub in the early 2000s.

I do not like the modern world either.
 
Scott Kenny said:
I was crew on a missile sub in the early 2000s.

I do not like the modern world either.
Click to expand...

2001 was to be A Space Odyssey, (got the book in May, for my birthday, blew my mind) - and instead we got the 9/11 horror. Can't help thinking something has been badly amiss with the world since then. That fateful day I was 19 and spent that tuesday visiting that wonderful place. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cité_de_l'espace
I even bought Airfix 1/72 scale Lunar Module, complete with the plastic disc to be turned into a plaster lunar surface - which I did. Still have it.

So in a sense, I commemorated the USA gloriest day (07/21/1969) the darkest day (9/11/2001). The irony has baffled me ever since.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom