Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

anonguest

Trident submarines

Recommended Posts

Seeing a link in the DT, whilst reading the other separate article about a randy office bonking dentist, I saw this other article......

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/03/become-suicide-bomber-posters-appear-across-london/

I note the comment:

“It is well known on board nuclear submarines that the Trident submarine on patrol will be the prime target in a nuclear war ...They are ready and prepared to be suicide bombers.”

Really?!  This is news to me. I always thought that the point of the submarine based deterrence was that they can be anywhere int he world and their location unknown.  Even IF the enemy know reasonably well where they are then surely the only way to take them out is via another submarine?? Which, presumably, implies that our enemies would need to be constantly 'taling' our Trident subs otherwise there is no practical means to take them out before they realistically launch a missile? and the destruction of the trident sub would be an 'after the event' action.

Comments from anyone here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm - I bet no one asked jolly jack tar aboard the subs. -_-

 

There's nothing new in the 'after strike suicide squad'. It was ever thus, even when I was in the RN. And if you ever read Neville Shute's depressing post-apocalyptic novel 'On the Beach' you'll know how futile the whole scenario is. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, anonguest said:

Seeing a link in the DT, whilst reading the other separate article about a randy office bonking dentist, I saw this other article......

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/03/become-suicide-bomber-posters-appear-across-london/

I note the comment:

“It is well known on board nuclear submarines that the Trident submarine on patrol will be the prime target in a nuclear war ...They are ready and prepared to be suicide bombers.”

Really?!  This is news to me. I always thought that the point of the submarine based deterrence was that they can be anywhere int he world and their location unknown.  Even IF the enemy know reasonably well where they are then surely the only way to take them out is via another submarine?? Which, presumably, implies that our enemies would need to be constantly 'taling' our Trident subs otherwise there is no practical means to take them out before they realistically launch a missile? and the destruction of the trident sub would be an 'after the event' action.

Comments from anyone here?

It doesn't sounds very plausible to me. As you say, how would they tail them without being noticed and all the other options would be too slow and too noticeable to take them out before they could launch the nukes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, TheBlueCat said:

It doesn't sounds very plausible to me. As you say, how would they tail them without being noticed and all the other options would be too slow and too noticeable to take them out before they could launch the nukes.

Hmm.  I'd suggest that the major world powers know pretty much exactly where more than 50% of the world's at-sea nuclear subs are, at any given moment in time (using 'advanced techniques').  The threat assumes that this is unlikely to reach 100%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, dgul said:

Hmm.  I'd suggest that the major world powers know pretty much exactly where more than 50% of the world's at-sea nuclear subs are, at any given moment in time (using 'advanced techniques').  The threat assumes that this is unlikely to reach 100%.

Personally I would have expected all the major powers to know, at least to a reasonably well defined region, where ALL of the other major powers subs are at any one time.

The point I was making/querying is that EVEN IF you know exactly where a trident sub is then IF you launch an attack at it HMG will know about it and beforced to retaliate/launch back before the sub is destroyed/disabled?

Then there is the separate technology based question as to IF it is possible at all to take out a submersed trident sub at all via a remote missile strike?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Americans are in a bit of a panic at the moment - so should we be. The US, in particular, have let their hunter-killer fleet age and they are facing a short-fall since Russian have been quietly revamping its fleet and the Chinese have been building up a whole new fleet of hunter-killers and ballistic subs.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, dgul said:

Hmm.  I'd suggest that the major world powers know pretty much exactly where more than 50% of the world's at-sea nuclear subs are, at any given moment in time (using 'advanced techniques').  The threat assumes that this is unlikely to reach 100%.

so presumably the best tactic would be to have an on-board sabboteur in the armoury??.

i think we've recently seen it would not necessarily come from the mad mullahs as a source(frankly too obvious as they happen to be a different colour),but could,in the case of that soldier on trial,come from a serviceman with "dissident republican" persuasions, in collusion with said mad mullahs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, anonguest said:

Personally I would ahve expected all the major powers to know, at least to a reasonably well defined region, where ALL of the other major powers subs are at any one time.

The point I was making/querying is that EVEN IF you know exactly where a trident sub is then IF you launch an attack at it HMG will know about it and beforced to retaliate/launch back before the sub is destroyed/disabled?

Then there is the technology based question as to IF it is possible to take out a trident sub at all via a missile strike?

 

Not really, the subs are sent out on patrol and it is left to the discretion of the captain where he goes. Obviously, beforehand a mix of intelligence, discussion with senior officers, etc, would focus the subs on being able to attack a particular enemy - for decades this potential enemy has been Russia. One day it might include China.

Considering the range of the Tridents there means there is a vast area of water for them to go hide in. One could be sat in a deep Norweigan fijord right now. Or under the ice cap. Or deep in the Atlantic. Depth is considered one of the greatest friends of submarines.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A friend of mine was ex-Royal Navy. It is a volunteer only service and in his opinion submariners were very odd types, with degree level skills in masturbation.

An aquaintance from school went into Navy and then submarines. He was from a very wealthy family, his Dad 'started at the bottom with no qualifications' and then worked his way up. His son tried to follow in his footsteps, he got the no qualifications bit spot on but then couldn't get a job to work his way up for a couple of years. He ended up in the Navy and to his credit has done quite well for himself since he joined. He was a bit odd though, he once left a girl he fancied/stalked a £100 teddy bear on her door step as a random present. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dgul said:

Hmm.  I'd suggest that the major world powers know pretty much exactly where more than 50% of the world's at-sea nuclear subs are, at any given moment in time (using 'advanced techniques').  The threat assumes that this is unlikely to reach 100%.

I agree with that but I don't see how that helps if they don't also have assets very nearby to the sub.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, assetrichcashpoor said:

A friend of mine was ex-Royal Navy. It is a volunteer only service and in his opinion submariners were very odd types, with degree level skills in masturbation.

An aquaintance from school went into Navy and then submarines. He was from a very wealthy family, his Dad 'started at the bottom with no qualifications' and then worked his way up. His son tried to follow in his footsteps, he got the no qualifications bit spot on but then couldn't get a job to work his way up for a couple of years. He ended up in the Navy and to his credit has done quite well for himself since he joined. He was a bit odd though, he once left a girl he fancied/stalked a £100 teddy bear on her door step as a random present. 

Sometimes the jokes tell themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Women who want to serve on submarines get me. There is no privacy and you get to know everyone else, their quirks, smells and other things quite intimately. It is bad enough for blokes having to live cheek to cheek with each other for weeks upon end. So why on earth women want to do this is beyond me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, The Masked Tulip said:

Women who want to serve on submarines get me. There is no privacy and you get to know everyone else, their quirks, smells and other things quite intimately. It is bad enough for blokes having to live cheek to cheek with each other for weeks upon end. So why on earth women want to do this is beyond me.

Even worse is that, reputedly, women living in such conditions tend to have their monthly cycles align with each other?

Having women on board, in a close quarters male dominated environment, is one thing.... but having ALL of them with PMS at the same time??!!!!  :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anti-submarine aircraft have been around since WWII 

The most vulnerable time for a Submarine is when it is at / or just under the surface (as it would be if it were to launch a missile)

Launching said missile would give it's position away.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, workingpoor said:

Anti-submarine aircraft have been around since WWII 

The most vulnerable time for a Submarine is when it is at / or just under the surface (as it would be if it were to launch a missile)

Launching said missile would give it's position away.

 

Which brings us back to the suicide suggestion in the original question......

The UK Trident fleet is a last resort weapon. 1 boat always at sea no one knows where just in case someone fancies having a pop at us....

If the duty boat ever has to fire then it it too late anyway. It's role is to frighten the enemy not to fire on us as as we have a means to retaliate and the fact it is somewhere under the Worlds oceans means you cannot find it.

A deterrent which means send us some good news and we will send some straight back.

As soon as it fires satellites can track the launch site of the missiles which itself is then subject to a bout of instant sunshine.

As I understand it every PM on appointment writes a letter which is sealed and travels with the duty boat. It caters for an event where no order to fire was ever received from Whitehall and that a sneak attack has decimated the UK. It gives the skipper discretion to retaliate or not on whomever fired on us.

One of the tests is the boat listens out for the shipping forecast or other broadcast on R4 Long wave.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, workingpoor said:

Anti-submarine aircraft have been around since WWII 

The most vulnerable time for a Submarine is when it is at / or just under the surface (as it would be if it were to launch a missile)

Launching said missile would give it's position away.

 

That's how I read it. They know they get one shot at causing some carnage, and then they're dead. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Hail the Tripod said:

That's how I read it. They know they get one shot at causing some carnage, and then they're dead. 

Launch, dive, and unless there's something nearby they'll be out of it again. Although quite who would want to survive if it did come to them being fired...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, geezer466 said:

Which brings us back to the suicide suggestion in the original question......

The UK Trident fleet is a last resort weapon. 1 boat always at sea no one knows where just in case someone fancies having a pop at us....

If the duty boat ever has to fire then it it too late anyway. It's role is to frighten the enemy not to fire on us as as we have a means to retaliate and the fact it is somewhere under the Worlds oceans means you cannot find it.

A deterrent which means send us some good news and we will send some straight back.

As soon as it fires satellites can track the launch site of the missiles which itself is then subject to a bout of instant sunshine.

As I understand it every PM on appointment writes a letter which is sealed and travels with the duty boat. It caters for an event where no order to fire was ever received from Whitehall and that a sneak attack has decimated the UK. It gives the skipper discretion to retaliate or not on whomever fired on us.

One of the tests is the boat listens out for the shipping forecast or other broadcast on R4 Long wave.

Nah, satellites do not cover the entire oceans waiting to spot a sub nuke launch. It is still very possible for a ballistic sub to surface, fire and then disappear into the depths again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bear in mind that the latest submarines (particularly the Russian ones) can launch missiles from depths of 200 feet.

So they don't need to be that close to the surface (or even surface at all). The missile would just appear from the sea. And the submarine would already be moving off, deeper into the ocean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Errol said:

Bear in mind that the latest submarines (particularly the Russian ones) can launch missiles from depths of 200 feet.

So they don't need to be that close to the surface (or even surface at all). The missile would just appear from the sea. And the submarine would already be moving off, deeper into the ocean.

In sub terms 50 metres is the surface. If a hunter killer tracking a ballistic sub sees it suddenly go up to 50 metres it gets very interested in a hurry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, The Masked Tulip said:

Nah, satellites do not cover the entire oceans waiting to spot a sub nuke launch. It is still very possible for a ballistic sub to surface, fire and then disappear into the depths again.

Maybe not but they will track missiles as soon as they reach a certain altitude.

Once done they can extrapolate the firing position from the course and track the missile is on.

Similar technology has existed on the battlefield since the 70's for mortar shells.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cymbeline_(radar)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Riedquat said:

Launch, dive, and unless there's something nearby they'll be out of it again. Although quite who would want to survive if it did come to them being fired...

ICBMs can travel from Russia to the eastern US in about 20-30min. A submarine can travel about 25mph. If a counterstrike was launched quickly the sub would only be able to get 5-10 miles from the launch site. Not sure how far a shock wave from a nuclear bomb exploding just above the sea would travel but it seems tight, especially as they could launch multiple ICBMs landing in a circle around the original launch site to destroy the sub to prevent it launching more missiles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   212 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.