Oops! American missile to replace Trident is too big for Britain’s nuclear submarines Contract documents reveal major headache THE US nuclear-armed missile that the Westminster government is hoping will replace Trident may not actually fit into British submarines, creating a "major headache" for UK weapons designers.
The Sunday Herald has seen evidence that US designers are contemplating new missiles too big to slot into the tubes that house Trident's current D5 missiles.
Tenders to bid for a test-bed for future underwater-launched nuclear missiles issued by the US navy last month specify a missile diameter of up to 120 inches. The diameter of Trident's D5 missile tubes is 87 inches.
The former prime minister, Tony Blair, won the support of the House of Commons in March this year for his controversial decision to renew Britain's nuclear weapons by replacing the four Trident submarines, currently stationed at Faslane on the Clyde.
Blair's plan - apparently endorsed by his successor, Gordon Brown - is to start arming the new submarines with the existing Trident missiles but then to replace them with new missiles being designed by the US.
That is why Blair exchanged formal letters with US president George W Bush on December 7, 2006. "The United Kingdom wishes to ensure that any successor to the D5 system is compatible with, or is capable of being made compatible with, the launch system for the D5 missile, which we will in the meantime be installing into our new submarines," Blair wrote.
Bush replied by inviting the UK to take part in the D5 replacement programme or to discuss extending the life of the missiles. "In this respect, any successor to the D5 system should be compatible with, or be capable of being made compatible with, the launch system for the D5 missile," he wrote.
Earlier this month defence secretary Des Browne confirmed that UK and US officials had met three times since March to consider missile designs. "Concept studies for the development of a new underwater-launched missile system have been discussed by officials at these meetings," he said.
But critics are now saying that Bush appears to be reneging on his promise to make sure any new missiles would be compatible with existing D5 launch systems. In November the US navy issued a notice inviting companies to bid for a new test-bed for "development testing of underwater-launched missile systems".
The notice said the test-bed should be able to support missiles up to 120 inches in diameter and 200,000lbs in weight, although Trident missile tubes have a diameter of 87 inches and the missiles weigh 130,000lbs. This was because "concepts for future submarines may have missile tubes larger than 87 inches in diameter", the notice said.
John Ainslie, co-ordinator for Scottish CND, said this would going to give the engineers in Barrow responsible for designing Britain's new submarines a big problem. "Common sense would suggest that if you are designing a submarine you must know the dimensions of the missiles it will carry," he said.
"But common sense has no place in the government's plan to build a new nuclear weapon system. The rushed programme to replace Trident could set a new benchmark for ineptitude at the Ministry of Defence MoD.
"Gordon Brown should call a halt to this absurd waste of taxpayers' money."
Ainslie argued it was not credible to arm the new submarines with Trident D5 missiles throughout their life because the US would cease maintaining them. The US navy is planning to withdraw Trident completely by 2042, but the UK wants to operate its new submarines until at least 2055.
He also pointed out that when the UK first bought Trident missiles in the early 1980s, it had to change its order to fit US timescales.
"They will be keen to purchase an underwater-launched missile system. But designing a submarine for an unknown missile will be a nightmare."
A spokeswoman for the MoD said: "We are satisfied the exchange of letters between the previous prime minister and the US president provide us with the necessary assurances that any US successor to the D5 missile should be compatible, or can be made compatible, with the launch system to be installed in our new submarines."
|
|

Posted by: Scamp on 9:57pm Sat 22 Dec 07
Brewery and urination come to mind.
Brewery and urination come to mind.
Posted by: jim mitchell, Sauchie, Clack's on 11:48pm Sat 22 Dec 07
Anybody got a hacksaw?
Posted by: nouveauxscum on 11:53pm Sat 22 Dec 07
Are Matel in the sub or the missile business? Are they bungers of New Labour? lol
Are Matel in the sub or the missile business? Are they bungers of New Labour? lol
Posted by: JWil, Lanarkshire on 12:25am Sun 23 Dec 07
Why would you want to trust anopther country to supply your war machine anyway?
Why would you want to trust anopther country to supply your war machine anyway?
Posted by: Donald Anderson, glasgow on 4:50am Sun 23 Dec 07
And the Brits are complaining that we were not properly consulted over a golf course?
And the Brits are complaining that we were not properly consulted over a golf course?
Posted by: Donald Anderson, glasgow on 4:51am Sun 23 Dec 07
And the Brits are complaining that we were not properly consulted over a golf course?
And the Brits are complaining that we were not properly consulted over a golf course?
Posted by: Donald Anderson, glasgow on 4:51am Sun 23 Dec 07
And the Brits are complaining that we were not properly consulted over a golf course?
And the Brits are complaining that we were not properly consulted over a golf course?
Posted by: Paul, Paisley on 7:11am Sun 23 Dec 07
Nothing a big waterproof rubber band can't sort!
Nothing a big waterproof rubber band can't sort!
Posted by: gus1940, Edinburgh on 10:35am Sun 23 Dec 07
The obvious solution is not to have nukes.
As regards the stated problem all that is required is to build the new boats with 120" launch tubes and insert a sleeve reducing the diameter to 87" to accomodate the D5's as an interim measure.
The obvious solution is not to have nukes.
As regards the stated problem all that is required is to build the new boats with 120" launch tubes and insert a sleeve reducing the diameter to 87" to accomodate the D5's as an interim measure.
Posted by: The West Awake, Argyll on 12:11pm Sun 23 Dec 07
"The former prime minister, Tony Blair, won the support of the House of Commons in March this year for his controversial decision to renew Britain's nuclear weapons by replacing the four Trident submarines, currently stationed at Faslane on the Clyde."
...But not in the Parliament where these WMD will be sited!
In a rare show of intelligence and principle, even some Unionist Labour numpties voted against it, ensuring the elected representatives of Scotland voted against Trident replacement and its siting in our country, 30 miles from Glasgow.
Blair ignored this minor little inconvenience of course, just like he ignored our Parliament over the Libyan prisoner deal, - what can we expect though, from the man who described our Parliament as a "parish council".
Labours "telling" days are over, here, and shortly in England too. Good riddance to these arrogant, corrupt gangsters!
"The former prime minister, Tony Blair, won the support of the House of Commons in March this year for his controversial decision to renew Britain's nuclear weapons by replacing the four Trident submarines, currently stationed at Faslane on the Clyde."
...But not in the Parliament where these WMD will be sited!
In a rare show of intelligence and principle, even some Unionist Labour numpties voted against it, ensuring the elected representatives of Scotland voted against Trident replacement and its siting in our country, 30 miles from Glasgow.
Blair ignored this minor little inconvenience of course, just like he ignored our Parliament over the Libyan prisoner deal, - what can we expect though, from the man who described our Parliament as a "parish council".
Labours "telling" days are over, here, and shortly in England too. Good riddance to these arrogant, corrupt gangsters!
Posted by: michael, glasgow on 1:15pm Sun 23 Dec 07
The more nukes the merrier, the sooner we can have a war or nuclear accident to wipe this vile species the human race of the face of the planet the better. Donald did you lack attention as a child.
The more nukes the merrier, the sooner we can have a war or nuclear accident to wipe this vile species the human race of the face of the planet the better. Donald did you lack attention as a child.
Posted by: Don Nash on 2:20pm Sun 23 Dec 07
That's technically referred to as a 'blivet'. That would technically be, ten pounds of crap pounded into a five pound bag. Leave it to the U.S. and the U.K. to foul the works on a deal like this.
That's technically referred to as a 'blivet'. That would technically be, ten pounds of crap pounded into a five pound bag. Leave it to the U.S. and the U.K. to foul the works on a deal like this.
Posted by: Mark Boyle, Johnstone on 3:37pm Sun 23 Dec 07
So the new nukes are too big for the subs?
Aw, that's a shame, isn't it? Oh well, we'll just have to do without them then, won't we?
I'm sure there's lots of other things we could buy instead, such as homes for the homeless, better hospitals and schools, replace the antiquated sanitation network in our towns and cities before it completely collapses...
So the new nukes are too big for the subs?
Aw, that's a shame, isn't it? Oh well, we'll just have to do without them then, won't we?
I'm sure there's lots of other things we could buy instead, such as homes for the homeless, better hospitals and schools, replace the antiquated sanitation network in our towns and cities before it completely collapses...
Posted by: Ziz, Manchester on 4:13pm Sun 23 Dec 07
..and I keep telling my wife size is unimportant
..and I keep telling my wife size is unimportant
Posted by: Nigel Baldwin, Portsmouth on 5:07pm Sun 23 Dec 07
To Mark Boyle:
What do the lives of ordinary British peasants like you and me matter? The only thing that counts to our misrulers is the dragon of "national prestige" they've been chasing since the last war ended.
As they see it, any price (be it a war, quasi or otherwise, or a new missile system we'll never use) is worth paying to continue to pretend to be a grand imperial power.
To Mark Boyle:
What do the lives of ordinary British peasants like you and me matter? The only thing that counts to our misrulers is the dragon of "national prestige" they've been chasing since the last war ended.
As they see it, any price (be it a war, quasi or otherwise, or a new missile system we'll never use) is worth paying to continue to pretend to be a grand imperial power.
Posted by: Kevin E, torontoCAN on 5:45pm Sun 23 Dec 07
It would make sense to suggest that perhaps with new developments in modular technology the newer subs could be adapted for any size missle.
Perhaps a cheveline2 program could be done to update trident 2 missles with more modern features in the interim
It would make sense to suggest that perhaps with new developments in modular technology the newer subs could be adapted for any size missle.
Perhaps a cheveline2 program could be done to update trident 2 missles with more modern features in the interim
Posted by: Ken Hall, Barrow in Furness on 6:16pm Sun 23 Dec 07
We will have no problem redesigning and refitting larger launch capability to the new designs for the Trident replacement. We are talented people in Barrow. This is NOT a problem.
We will have no problem redesigning and refitting larger launch capability to the new designs for the Trident replacement. We are talented people in Barrow. This is NOT a problem.
Posted by: john smith, wales on 7:52pm Sun 23 Dec 07
maybe britain should stop this before iran is forced to bomb them for breaching the NPT,
afterall, isnt that the excuse america was using?
maybe britain should stop this before iran is forced to bomb them for breaching the NPT,
afterall, isnt that the excuse america was using?
Posted by: Mike, Liverpool on 9:08pm Sun 23 Dec 07
Ahhh the military industrial complex. What a lovable bunch of rogues. Mark my words, these people don't make mistakes.
Incompetence is the excuse they use to justify their less palatable doings.
Ahhh the military industrial complex. What a lovable bunch of rogues. Mark my words, these people don't make mistakes.
Incompetence is the excuse they use to justify their less palatable doings.
Posted by: Doug on 11:28pm Sun 23 Dec 07
Is this article some kind of a soft soap, and the proverbial Vaseline to stuff the submarines into the budget too, cuz the missiles are too big, and we need bigger missiles, cus size does matter?
Now if it were to be new drugs to save lives, there would have been a NICE directive to stop the drugs prescription, cuz of cost benefit concerns, but seeing as these missiles are a must have, then of course the new submarines have to be provisioned for too!!!!
On the other hand to make a special batch of smaller missiles we would have to pay even more, so that the new downsized missiles can fit the existing submarines, will be the argument now?
sound like any self-respecting double glazing salesman bent on closing a deal that stuff the customer well and truly. Needless to point out that nuclear tipped missiles are good for the global warming, because they cost a packet, and as we know to tackle global warming the prices have to go up, cuz the more expensive prices the better it is for 'war' on global warming.
Hypocritical twits, will not even consider the cheap as chips Russian nuclear plants, or the latest Toshiba brand of micro nuclear reactors for cheap power, but will for sure price gouge, and keep fondling us all in the name of security, and stuff the living daylight out of us all so that the globe is not warmed!! While telling us that the missiles keep it that away by threatening the Axis of Carbon Dioxide/Monoxide/Tri
oxide, with carrot and stick policies keeping these on notice, in the knowledge that the missiles' payload will make Helium three out of them all!!!!!!!!!
Is this article some kind of a soft soap, and the proverbial Vaseline to stuff the submarines into the budget too, cuz the missiles are too big, and we need bigger missiles, cus size does matter?
Now if it were to be new drugs to save lives, there would have been a NICE directive to stop the drugs prescription, cuz of cost benefit concerns, but seeing as these missiles are a must have, then of course the new submarines have to be provisioned for too!!!!
On the other hand to make a special batch of smaller missiles we would have to pay even more, so that the new downsized missiles can fit the existing submarines, will be the argument now?
sound like any self-respecting double glazing salesman bent on closing a deal that stuff the customer well and truly. Needless to point out that nuclear tipped missiles are good for the global warming, because they cost a packet, and as we know to tackle global warming the prices have to go up, cuz the more expensive prices the better it is for 'war' on global warming.
Hypocritical twits, will not even consider the cheap as chips Russian nuclear plants, or the latest Toshiba brand of micro nuclear reactors for cheap power, but will for sure price gouge, and keep fondling us all in the name of security, and stuff the living daylight out of us all so that the globe is not warmed!! While telling us that the missiles keep it that away by threatening the Axis of Carbon Dioxide/Monoxide/Tri
oxide, with carrot and stick policies keeping these on notice, in the knowledge that the missiles' payload will make Helium three out of them all!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: James, Lanarkshire on 3:28pm Mon 24 Dec 07
Could this a reincarnation of the B@lls-up between the UK and NASA where they got SI units (UK) mixed up with Imperial units (USA)?
Could this a reincarnation of the B@lls-up between the UK and NASA where they got SI units (UK) mixed up with Imperial units (USA)?
Posted by: Boris, Frejus on 12:03am Fri 28 Dec 07
Inbred morons making decision, retarded monkeys implementig it!
Inbred morons making decision, retarded monkeys implementig it!
Posted by: paul h, fife on 11:12pm Sat 29 Dec 07
It's ok. They'll solve this minor problem with a few extra billion to iron out design issues. Another union dividend.
It's ok. They'll solve this minor problem with a few extra billion to iron out design issues. Another union dividend.