Ballistic submarines

Discussion in 'Submariners' started by Chicogiz, Jan 15, 2007.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Why have we got 4 ballistic sumarine when there is only 1 at sea all the time and the other ones at base we only need about 2. The money could of gone on something else like the new aircraft carrier, what does everyone else think i might be wrong.
  2. You ARE WRONG...and i'm sure the submariners on this site will try to explain why to you, i,m not even going to start! :roll: :roll:
  3. Tell me thats why i asked.
  4. I am not a sun dodger but if one is on patrol, one is getting ready to patrol, one is undergoing training and one is in refit.
  5. So stumpy you will only need 3 do you agree so one on patrol when one getting refit the other ramaining one can take over the other one back from patrol true or not?
  6. Spot on Stumpy,For Great Britian to maintain a Strategic Nuclear deterant its need 4 SSBN's .ie 24/7/365. 3 boats with 2 crews and the forth(refit boat) with 1 crew.
  7. Chico read the answer, you missed the training requirement. Looks like maths isn't your strongest subject. We need 4
  8. Come on Chicogiz, its not rocket science... oh no wait it is...
  9. In reality we don't need any, Tony's got his head so far up Georges arse he could just ask George to be our national deterrent!

    anyway where's the threat these days now the cold war is over?
  10. I think we should have a whip round to get e_c a telly so he can watch the news
    geoff(ers) :???:
  11. It's no good nuke'n the Islamic countries, 'cause half of them aren't at home, they are resident in the UK being educated at the cost to the British tax payer, under the guise of clerics, and religious types.

    you can't fight a guerrilla war with 50 megaton nuclear weapons.

    the yanks can deal with North Korea and Iran you know they want to!
  12. Without trying to sound to simplistic, the idea behind having 4 nukes is perfectly well explained above. The reason we have them at all is so this country of ours can remain a BIG TIME PLAYER. Without them we have nothing left and would very quickly get our arses kicked out of the super 7/G8 club and be on level terms with Trinindad and Tobago.
    We have a big stick (Trident) and you can come and have a go if you think your hard enough!!!!
  13. We only really need 3 to ensure 2BA(Boat availability) however in case something major was to go wrong with one of them there is always the 3rd available.

    Im sure that nothing would go wrong with the boats though ;);)
  14. I'm sure you're right.

  15. Pretty much spot on.

  16. Contributor Mode

    A simplistic argument Theoldti

    Of the G8 Members UK, USA, France and Russia, thats four, have Nuke weapons.
    Italy, Canada, Japan and Germany do not, that four as well.

    G7 Countries Germany, Japan, Canada and Italy do not have nuke weapons, thats four.
    The minority, USA, UK and France do, thats three.

    So why do you suppose, Germany, France, Italy and Japan are on par with Trinidad and Tabago and have not been kicked out of the big league.

    Now if you had said the five permanent members of the UN Security Council all have nuke weapons then you could enter that as an argument. But then since Korea nearly 60 years ago was the only binding decision that the Council has ever taken that has been obeyed and that by force. The Korea decision only happened because the USSR missed the meeting and China was not a member of the UN at that time.

    So that puts that one to bed now is it Independent well Electric-chef got that one correct.

    I am not anti nuclear weapons I just see no need for the UK to still maintain a Strategic Intercontinental Nuclear Weapon System.

    If you have a better argument I am all ears.


    PS We are still currently the fourth largest economy in the world so are hardly a minnow in the pond.
  17. The title is fascinating. I read it and had instant visions of a boat doing a fair imitation of a Polaris/Trident missile. That or being dropped free-fall from a f*cking huge bomber.

    OK why do we have such boats? I know that there was a time when they made sense. Now that the original threat has faded somewhat and their continued presence is not so easy to justify, I can only assume that the Big Boys don't want to lose their toys.
  18. Isn't it wonderful for e_c to guarantee that they'll never come a time when there might be a escalation of events between nations where there is a need for a deterrent like Trident? I'm not a fan of the things, but they do a job, give the UK a card at the international level and I can't divine the future.
  19. Oslo

    A very expensive card for a "but what if" situation that may happen. When, if the money was kept in the Submarine fleet, could purchase more effective platforms and weapons.

  20. All the time we have these Bombers no one will want to F**K with us.

    You would be suprised where some of the targets were as well !!!!

    Nick (Ex MCC Queen )

Share This Page