Talk:Dreadnought-class submarine

message: Are Trident missiles sans warheads supplied by the US or did Thatcher effect a technology transfer in the 80s? (I thought we couldn't build our own rockets any more) It would be interesting to know how much of the projected budget will be spent in the UK and how much will have to go on importing material from the United States. What is the process by which this would occur? Has there been a sucessor to the Polaris agreement? --Mr impossible 15:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The UK paid 5% of the Trident R&D budget. I don't know if another payment was made per missile or whether the missiles contain any significant British content? The current submarines themselves are a significant part of the cost and they are largely British designed and built. The Polaris Sales Agreement article answers your question -- it was modified for Trident. Hence the "Polaris Sales Agreement" provides the framework for the supply of Trident missiles as it did for Polaris. There was never a "Trident Sales Agreement". Mark83 16:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The real quaetsion that IMHO everoyne missed (check the Ohio class talk page where i've our American cousins for their views) is why the Americans aren't really thinking about theirs yet - their (older) Ohio class boats will continue in service till the 2040s and so will the Trident D5 missiles (both with mid life upgrades). The eventual next generation SSBN isn't really being considered / though about. Pickle 18:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: US Involvement

message: :Initially, parts of the existing Trident system will be refitted to some extent to prolong their lives. However, the relatively short (five years) life extension potential of the Vanguard class means a new class of SSBNs will replace it in the early 2020s. There are suggestions that the SSBN fleet may be cut to three hulls if the design could maintain the Continuous at Sea Deterrence principle at that number. The first SSBN would probably take 17 years to be designed and built, making a five year life extension of the Vanguard class necessary. On this basis, a refitted Vanguard class could still shrink by at least one vessel for a period of time before the first replacement SSBN enters service.
The articles I've read have suggested a number of people, e.g. the Liberal Democrats believe the decision can and should be delayed until 2012 or 2015 later (the article only mentions someone saying 15 years longer and I haven't heard anything about that). The info on the article (17 years to design and build vs early 2020s for extended Vanguard life span) suggest this isn't possible since the replacament will only be ready by 2029 which isn't early 2020s. Either they think it's possible to build and design the replacemebt in a shorter timeframe or they claim it's possible to extend the life of the Vanguard further.
Also, the article in general doesn't mention the politics much like the large number of rebel Labour members
Nil Einne 16:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  From what I can tell, the Liberal Democrat timetable for the SSBN class is largely unchanged; they are just arguing for a debate closer to the order of the submarines in 2014. It now seems they are going to get it. Clue 22:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Timeframe for replacement

message: The phrase "Continuous at sea deterrent" is used far too frequently in the article. Why is it that other countries have nuclear weapons but only the UK has a nuclear "deterrent" ? 94.0.99.117 (talk) 14:45, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Continuous at sea deterrent (TM)

message: The way I understand it the controversy began and got it's early funding and organizational assistance from Soviet spies.  This doesn't change the reality or the validity of the controversy, but it should be mentioned. Djfeldman 14:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No evidence is given as to how the last editor acquired this understanding so it "Moscow Gold" allegations should not be included. == Vernon White (talk) 14:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know it was rumoured, but without reliable sources its best not mentioned Pickle 18:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy 

message: "Greenpeace has claimed the recent £1 billion investment in AWE is for secret initial work on developing a replacement."
So secret, AWE mentions it on their web site.  Greenpeace talk out of their sanctimonious asses.  86.17.211.148 (talk) 01:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. AWE states that here. I think this should be added to maintain NPOV. 81.168.117.85 (talk) 14:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

text: Just realised that this is already mention under Munitions. 81.168.117.85 (talk) 15:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Secret work? 

message: I've added a sub section on Alternative replacement strategies.
Perhaps there could be more added on this subject.
After all, the debate is not just about The Government Proposal vs. Opposition to the Nuclear Deterrent. There are significant shades of grey in between, and considering that the SDSC is currently underway, there is uncertainty as to what the eventual replacement (if there is one) will look like.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.53.140 (talk) 13:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replacement Alternatives 

message: I've put a tag on to update the article with recent events e.g. delaying the decision of the 'main gate' until next election. Will update if I get chance but feel free to do so yourselves and remove the tag afterwards. 81.168.117.85 (talk) 10:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs updating 

message: I follow the informed view that calling this proposed programme the "Trident replacement" is incorrect, although one should somehow recognise that's what they say on the 10 O'Clock news. If the new submarine has a name (if there is one then MoD aren't saying, principally because the Programme hasn't officially started until Main Gate is approved), it is "The Successor SSBN", or to its mates in Cumbria and Derby, the Successor programme. Matt Whyndham (talk) 17:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but the article is not simply about the SSBN, but rather the entire system (ie SSBN/Missile/Warhead/Infrastructure) the WP:COMMONNAME for the current system is Trident, and so Trident replacement seems perfectly apt. Thom2002 (talk) 19:39, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Just as "Trident" refers to one part (the missile) but gets applied to the system, so "Successor" gets used for everything to do with the new system, not just the submarine. You could combine elements of both with "Successor to the British Trident system" or "Successor to the British nuclear deterrent", so go for something really general like "Future of the British nuclear deterrent". But I think at this stage "Successor" is sufficiently well-established to merit inclusion in the title somewhere. 86.31.6.104 (talk) 09:39, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I would support that, 86.31.6.104. Successor to the British Trident system sounds good. Thom2002 (talk) 11:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The thing thats going to get really confusing is the 'sucessor to Trident' is likely to still use the same Trident D5 missiles (possibly with a minor modernisation) just with a new class of ballistic submarine. WatcherZero (talk) 18:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: However her mag's govt. would be remiss if they did not consider all other options before doing the obvious. Hcobb (talk) 18:23, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Simply the "Successor programme" would work for me, as that's what's been used eg in Parliament and it's unique on Wikipedia. But on the basis of perfection being the enemy of the good, I've moved to "Successor to the British Trident system" as that's a better name than the existing one, that has support. I've done a little tidying up but really this whole thing could do with a general rewrite (I'm not volunteering!), and some of the sources could do with firming up - what information there is available about this kind of thing, comes from official documents so there's no real need to quote websites of dubious authenticity when one can cite the original. It also feels a bit dated - more could be taken from the Initial Gate report.Le Deluge (talk) 14:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  name of the Article, i.e. not "replacement of Trident" 

message: Today's papers, BBC etc full of Trident replacement coverage, eg:
* http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article3777349.ece?CMP=OTH-gnws-standard-2013_05_28
Mais oui! (talk) 01:49, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Times: "Tories attack coalition partners over plan to halve Trident replacement" 

message: This has various useful snippets if someone wants to update the article... 82.26.170.46 (talk) 14:11, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  August 2013 briefing paper 

message: Paranoid: relating to a mental illness that causes people to falsely believe that other are trying to harm or attack them.
 
“Their development and perfectioning of nuclear weapons, they argue, would actually gain value, because the UK (if it were to disarm itself) would now be defenceless against such threats, so there would be little risk and much benefit to attacking the UK. A non-nuclear Britain, they argue, would have no effective means of responding to such attacks.”
Well done you budding Dr Strangeloves, despite being totally deluded and paranoid, you have managed to convince most editors that your cold war spin is really modern, reasoned and reasonable thinking. Given this, should Wikipedia put out such well-presented nonsense?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.15.235.160 (talk) 20:19, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  How We Learned To Love The Bomb  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Successor to the UK Trident system. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061211190034/http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org:80/releases/061204.htm to http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/releases/061204.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:14, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The support section states :  "its [Russia's] replacement of single-warhead SS-25 Sickle and RT-2UTTKh missiles with 10-warhead RS-24 Yars ICBMs,[59] its replacement of old, 4-warhead R-29RMU missiles with 10- and 12-warhead Bulava missile and R-29RMU2 Layner, and its development and testing of the intermediate range R-500 ground-launched cruise missile, which they claim is a violation of the INF Treaty".  
This section risks bringing the article into disrepute because it specifically mentions Russia's systems without noting that they are a counterweight to American systems (let's not forget that it could be argued that Russia developed nuclear weapons in response to America's nuclear weapons, though I will not be relying upon such an argument).  Why mention the RS-24 Yars ICBMs and not the American Minuteman III (LGM-30G) ICBMs or the American UGM-133 Trident II SLBMs?  Unfortunately, given the reduced pace of disarmament over the last 25 years (see https://fas.org/issues/nuclear-weapons/status-world-nuclear-forces/ which states this), it looks like both sides (Russia-China and NATO) want to keep their nuclear weapons and delivery systems for as long as they can.  Part of the reason for why they do this is because it is difficult to compare weapons systems to see which is superior, or whether one nuclear warhead REALLY IS worth an opponent's nuclear warhead during the New Start Treaty.  The ultimate test of such things would be warfare itself (which is to be avoided!).  The point I'm basically trying to make is that it's disingenuous to state that America and the UK are developing nuclear capabilities in Response to Russia (though there may be Some truth to this assertion) when America has used nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki (which were a non-nuclear power).  America has been willing to use nuclear weapons against conventional targets in the past, and this would clearly present a dangerous precedent to the Russians.  
A more neutral stance would have been to compare the ICBM delivery systems of Russia & China to the NATO countries AND to have compared the warhead yield distributions (ie: how many warheads of each given yield interval each country has) so as to gain an idea of the 'balance of nuclear power'.  The geographical distribution of nuclear weapons (for those which are not submarine based) might provide an indication of which surface areas of the world stand the greatest risk of obliteration during a nuclear conflict (though the 'Intercontinental' in ICBM would limit this logic - unless you had a game theoretical 'nuclear simulation' set of movies to play out different scenarios).  Whoever wrote the above clearly wanted to bash the Russians, without trying to understand their own defence interests, or without being truthful in indicating the current balance of power (as would be done by comparing warhead yield distributions and likely geographical targets).  One would imagine that the Russians and Chinese are just as likely to engage in joint targeting as is NATO, showing that both sides are still well-matched, and unlikely to engage in nuclear war for a certain time period.  Another factor worth considering is the likely psychological stability of future leaders.  If the Successor system is going to last 50 years or more, can we really be sure that future leaders will be of as high a calibre as what we have been used to in the past?  
ASavantDude (talk) 00:21, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Support - Strategic Value Section

message: Common Combat System 
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/royal-navys-newest-sub-test-fires-torpedo-using-50-million-uk-made-advanced-combat-system
Cantab1985 (talk) 15:29, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  The class will have the  Common Combat System  

message: I have added this section with an update about the plan as of 20 July, with citations for all concepts. However, I wonder if additional reorganization of this article might be appropriate. It seemed frozen in time. Now that significant developments will be occurring, should some old information be deleted? Also, there is a lot of discussion of morality and the value of the Trident program. Is all of that still relevant now that the Successor class subs will definitely be built, and that the UK is definitely remaining with the at-sea nuclear deterrent? Perhaps; if so, it should be updated with July 2016 comments from Jeremy Corbyn and Theresa May, for example. I have not done so. For example, see http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-trident-debate-nuclear-bomb-yes-live-latest-news-a7143386.html  AND https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jul/18/theresa-may-takes-aim-at-jeremy-corbyn-over-trident-renewal AND http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/17/corbyn-puts-trident-fore-labour-divisions-deepen and https://next.ft.com/content/3b239c2a-4c15-11e6-8172-e39ecd3b86fc Peter K Burian (talk) 15:58, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The article should definitely be revised, as there is a lot of anachronistic phrases. The Support and Opposition sections now seem unduly large, and the former is poorly sourced. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:58, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: As I suggested above, it would make sense to have this as more of a traditional ship class article, with just a short summary of the political stuff, with the main political stuff going into Trident nuclear programme.Le Deluge (talk) 11:09, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree; there is no reason for an article about a type of ship to cover an entire nuclear programme. But an edit of that magnitude (on an article that I have not been involved in for long) is beyond my scope. Peter K Burian (talk) 12:24, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  2016 Trident renewal and major edit required 

message: As a ship class article, this should conform to the MoS guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Guidelines. Unnecessary political commentary on British nuclear weapons or trident missiles are better discussed at Trident nuclear programme or Nuclear weapons and the United Kingdom. Antiochus the Great (talk) 17:27, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. This article should be about the 4 new boats. Sumorsǣte (talk) 18:31, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

text: Was separate articles but the pages got merged since people were complaining of duplication. Anyway main reason I'm here is to say page will have to be renamed again, its going to be named the Dreadnought class today with the first in class HMS Dreadnought. WatcherZero (talk) 03:09, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: After many months there has been no objection. Done. Antiochus the Great (talk) 19:02, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Ship class article

message: SDSR 2010 stated that "the number of operational launch tubes on the submarines from 12 to eight, and the number of warheads from 48 to 40"
This must be included.
Sammartinlai (talk) 04:56, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Information on warheads and SLBMs 

message: https://twitter.com/AdmPhilipJones/status/1070653436268560384
Sammartinlai (talk) 12:36, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  second boat to be named HMS Valiant