Military Review

To "protect" from the Russian Federation and North Korea, Britain will build 4 new nuclear submarines

44
Received its continuation историяassociated with the fact that on the eve of the British Prime Minister Theresa May announced threatening the security of the United Kingdom of Russia and the DPRK. Recall that, according to Ms. May, "Russia has a large number of nuclear warheads, and the DPRK is ready to use nuclear warheads, violating UN Security Council resolutions."


Today it became known that such statements by Theresa May were not idle. It turns out that in this way the British Prime Minister urged parliamentarians to support the idea of ​​modernizing the state’s nuclear shield.

To "protect" from the Russian Federation and North Korea, Britain will build 4 new nuclear submarines


"BBC" reports that representatives of the House of Commons by a majority vote were in favor of building 4's new submarines capable of carrying nuclear weapon. 472 deputies voted in favor of 177 against. The country's defense minister, Michael Fallon, enthusiastically embraced such a decision by the deputies, saying that it was “correct, since the threats are only increasing.” By the way, Teresa May herself used the same phrase. The cost of the project to create submarines with new Trident ballistic missiles will be about 31 billion pounds.

It is noteworthy that the representatives of Scotland in the Kingdom Parliament were categorically against the project to modernize Britain’s nuclear forces. The fact is that the base of the British submarine fleet located in Scotland, and at one time supporters of secession from the United Kingdom used precisely this argument - in favor of a nuclear-free Scottish status.
Photos used:
http://warrenfyfenews.org
44 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. avvg
    avvg 19 July 2016 07: 53
    0
    One more step, thanks to the Anglo-Saxons, the world is heading for disaster, for nuclear war.
    1. cniza
      cniza 19 July 2016 08: 08
      +7
      The world has long been on the verge, and in this case, the military-industrial complex wants money and there is a good reason.
      1. INVESTOR
        INVESTOR 19 July 2016 09: 53
        0
        Drown this fucking island, according to Khrushchev.
    2. Ami du peuple
      Ami du peuple 19 July 2016 08: 09
      +1
      Quote: avvg
      de these submarines with nuclear weapons will be based?
      Nowhere, the Scots will pick them up at the expense of compensation for the centuries-old English occupation and sell them to someone. North Korea, for examplelaughingHere is another interesting
      The cost of the project to create submarines with new Trident ballistic missiles will be about 31 billion pounds
      If you take into account that the construction of these nuclear submarines will take more than one year, and the annual contribution of Small Britain to the total budget of the EU amounted to about 10 billion pounds, then an interesting picture is obtained - the citizens, using the money saved from membership in the European Union, will modernize their submarine fleet.
    3. Andrey K
      Andrey K 19 July 2016 08: 14
      +6
      The desire of small Britain to rearm is understandable. But, this is a very expensive event, and will remain on paper.
      Four boats - five ... why not eight at once?
      The cost of the project to create submarines with new Trident ballistic missiles will be about 31 billion pounds.

      These 31 lard will result in a total of 131.
      Each submarine carries 16 Trident ballistic missiles. And the allies from Syshya know that 16 * 4 = 64 UGM-133A "Trident-II" D5 will be needed? Are they generally able to provide these "prospects" of the British with appropriate weapons?
      1. donavi49
        donavi49 19 July 2016 08: 29
        +6
        The United States has no bunting.

        The whole problem is in the British Nuclear Forces, not in missiles, but in Boats. For 4 Vanguard boats, the deadline is 18-20. Further, either a rejection of nuclear status, or a major Vanguard repair, which would extend life by 10 years, no more, but would result in 5-6 lb. Funtetskiy, or the construction of new boats.

        We chose the option of building 4 new boats.

        And they have Trident, just from the Vanguard boats purchased for 4 each with 16 missiles + another reserve for training launches / state of emergency.
        1. Andrey K
          Andrey K 19 July 2016 08: 39
          +5
          Quote: donavi49
          ... For 4 Vanguard boats, the deadline is 18-20 ...
          ... They chose the option of building 4 new boats ...
          ... And they have Trident, just from the Vanguard boats purchased for 4 boats each with 16 missiles + another reserve for training launches / state of emergency.

          I agree. I overlooked this option hi
          1. Observer2014
            Observer2014 19 July 2016 08: 47
            +3
            Andrey K hi Evgenievich Hello!
            What I wanted to ask. And when and how many times did the British launch Trident successful launches from their submarines? Who knows?
            1. Andrey K
              Andrey K 19 July 2016 08: 58
              +7
              Hello yourself! Torpedo attack !!! (old joke) laughing
              Greetings buddy!
              I don’t know about successful launches. But judging by the information available in the public domain, they now have a question about the withdrawal from the fleet of HMS Resolution (S22), HMS Repulse (S23), HMS Renown (S26), HMS Revenge (S27). These four boats, generally the middle of the last century, are armed with the old Polaris A-3 ...
              1. donavi49
                donavi49 19 July 2016 09: 21
                0
                Back in the 90s they brought it out and replaced it with Vanguard. All boats are disassembled and are awaiting disposal (12 year mandatory sludge period - after dismantling the reactors) or have already been cut.

                Now Vanguard will be replaced. The Englishwoman has a total of 4 SSBNs in the fleet.
                1. Andrey K
                  Andrey K 19 July 2016 10: 08
                  +5
                  Quote: donavi49
                  Back in the 90s they brought it out and replaced it with Vanguard. All boats are disassembled and are awaiting disposal (12 year mandatory sludge period - after dismantling the reactors) or have already been cut.

                  Now Vanguard will be replaced. The Englishwoman has a total of 4 SSBNs in the fleet.

                  Colleague! I will not argue and "balk" on this issue. The man himself is not a naval man, so I use available sources. And there it is written - that this junk is still in the fleet request
                  Well, if you are talking about "Vanguard", "Victories", "Vigilent" and "Venjens" (I wrote about them below in the commentary), then the sea will be so calm. This means that the "Englishwoman", the number of SSBNs, has been halved good
                  1. donavi49
                    donavi49 19 July 2016 10: 35
                    +1
                    So it’s written everywhere that they deduced:
                    The chapter came to an end in May 1996 when Repulse completed the final Polaris patrol and responsibility for the national deterrent passed to the Vanguard Class SSBN, equipped with Trident D5 missiles.

                    Repulse was finally decommissioned on August 28 in 1996.

                    Here is the official website of Royal Navi - only 4 Vanguards in the ranks:
                    http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/our-organisation/the-fighting-arms/submarine-service
                    # fleet-submarines
              2. Observer2014
                Observer2014 19 July 2016 09: 23
                +2
                Andrey K (2)

                I don’t know about successful launches. But judging by the information available in the public domain, they now have a question about the withdrawal from the fleet of HMS Resolution (S22), HMS Repulse (S23), HMS Renown (S26), HMS Revenge (S27). These four boats, generally the middle of the last century, are armed with the old Polaris A-3 ...
                U! So they’re all sad at all. They spent money on social programs. Now let them spend money on the army. If they can, of course. Because the missiles in their boats now look more like museum exhibits.
        2. db1967
          db1967 19 July 2016 08: 52
          +2
          What is the deadline?
          At 18-20m they will be 15 years old. For Ohio, officially declared life of 42-44 years.
          Or does the British have a one-shot reactor? laughing
          I would still understand the logic if I ordered the SSGN.
          1. Andrey K
            Andrey K 19 July 2016 09: 10
            +5
            Quote: db1967
            What is the deadline?
            At 18-20m they will be 15 years old. For Ohio, officially declared life of 42-44 years.
            Or does the British have a one-shot reactor? laughing

            You hurried request
            They confused "Vanguard", "Victories", "Vigilent" and "Venjens", commissioned from 1993 to 1999 - with the boats "Resolution", "Rinaun", "Ripals", "Rivenge" put into operation in the period from 1967 to 1969 request
            They are at least 48 years old hi
            1. db1967
              db1967 19 July 2016 13: 23
              +2
              2018-1993 = 15 years.
              For Ohio, a 42-44-year service program has been officially adopted.
              Compared with the Wangards by age, Triumphans are not going to replace emnip either.
              Squids serve for 32 years.
              Resolved written off 20 years as.
              So what are you confusing here laughing
          2. donavi49
            donavi49 19 July 2016 09: 26
            0
            In the year 20 they will be 21-27 years old (head boat from 93 years old). With a period of 25 years.

            Even under Cameron, there were discussions about a three-year major overhaul of boats, with an extension of the resource to 30-35 years. However, at that time no money was found either for repairs or for an order, and they were postponed closer to the year 20.

            Ohio was extended to 40 years by a special program, quite expensive, when they did not find money for SSBN (X). Here the British, similarly wanted to do, but in the end decided in favor of new boats.
        3. Sergey39
          Sergey39 19 July 2016 11: 00
          +1
          Missiles also have deadlines.
        4. Boa kaa
          Boa kaa 19 July 2016 23: 44
          +1
          Quote: donavi49
          And they have Trident, just from the Vanguard boats purchased for 4 each with 16 missiles + another reserve for training launches / state of emergency.

          He returned from Africa ... It turns out so much interesting missed !!!
          On business.
          At present, the UK’s strategic nuclear forces are represented by the naval component of the -1 th submarine squadron, which includes four Vengard-class SSBNs equipped with Trident-2 SLBMs (16 missiles with homing missiles, capable of carrying up to eight 0,1-0,15 warheads Mt., with firing range 9 000 km). In the real world, SSBNs go on combat patrol with 12 SLBMs with four warheads on each missile. Moreover, three of the four SSBNs in peacetime are in full combat readiness. One of them carries out combat patrols in the North-East Atlantic, and the other two are on alert at the Faslane base. The fourth boat is undergoing major repairs or upgrades. All SSBNs were developed by the military-industrial complex of Great Britain and introduced into the combat structure of the Navy in the 1994-2001 years. SLB Trident-2 are actually leased from the USA and loaded onto boats at the US arsenal in King's Bay, Georgia. In addition, American experts carry out copyright and guarantee supervision of the operation of these missiles, as well as are engaged in their maintenance. Warheads and missile warheads are manufactured in the UK.

          So the islanders do not have "their" SLBMs ... The carriers (boats), the heads (BB) are, but the means of abandonment are assigned by the Amers.
          The British SSBNs are included in the unified nuclear planning system (US SNA, in the Unified Joint Operational Plan for the Defeat of Strategic Goals (OPLAN 8044). But the Prime Minister of Great Britain decides on the application of the strategic nuclear forces
          Quote: Observer2014
          when and how many times did the British launch trident launches from their submarines? Who knows?

          The tasks of combat training during the inter-campaign period are fulfilled according to the plan of the fleet command in the form of trainings for combat crews of shift crews and combat exercises at the training grounds of the Firth of Clyde Bay, as well as in the area of ​​the Hebri Islands. Control missile launches of British SLBMs are carried out at the US Eastern Missile Range under the guidance of American experts.
          Quote: Observer2014
          Because those rockets that they now have in boats are more like museum exhibits.
          Until 2020, the British will keep in combat readiness four Vanguard-class SSBNs with Trident-2 missiles, which are not trash.
          And the last thing. The picture shows a trafalgar-class plank, which has nothing to do with SSBNs.
          Yours faithfully, hi
      2. Vadim237
        Vadim237 19 July 2016 10: 26
        0
        They will not pour out into anything - these submarines are able to build, as part of the British Navy there are 11 nuclear submarines, four more are being built.
    4. DMB_95
      DMB_95 19 July 2016 09: 38
      0
      The Anglo-Saxons have iron logic: "... the DPRK is ready to use nuclear warheads in violation of the UN Security Council resolutions." But can the Security Council pass a resolution authorizing the use of nuclear weapons? No. And Scotland really got it. Even with a nuclear strike only on England, Scotland will still be "covered".
  2. Teberii
    Teberii 19 July 2016 07: 53
    0
    And I really thought to build a wall and they will dig a ditch like in Ukraine.
  3. sever.56
    sever.56 19 July 2016 07: 53
    0
    Where will the submarines be based if Scotland holds a referendum and leaves the UK?
    And everything goes to that. The first Minister of Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon has already made it clear that such a referendum could take place very soon.
    As soon as a woman comes to power in the West, she first begins to aggravate relations with Russia. I’m even afraid to imagine that he will declare a policy with respect to Russia, he will declare a clinician if she is elected president. Some of them are all there peasant and aggressive. They do not like their men in bed, and so they move off the coils.
  4. Andrey160479
    Andrey160479 19 July 2016 07: 54
    +3
    Correctly the Scots opposed. Because Scotland may disappear from the world map. Apparently with a sound mind they are doing well.
    1. Evgesh91
      Evgesh91 19 July 2016 07: 59
      +3
      given the size, with a nuclear strike on Scotland, the whole of Great Britain will disappear ...
  5. svp67
    svp67 19 July 2016 07: 57
    +2
    So what? How much calmer will the citizens of Great Britain sleep after that? I think "British scientists" will find out soon
    1. Alexander Romanov
      Alexander Romanov 19 July 2016 08: 07
      +1
      Quote: svp67
      So what?

      How is that, read-The cost of the project to create submarines with new Trident ballistic missiles will be about 31 billion pounds.
      This is the real dough cut wassat 7.5 lards per trough belay
      1. donavi49
        donavi49 19 July 2016 08: 34
        +2
        This is the total amount. It is necessary to develop a project, prepare production, modernize basing places, prepare l / s, etc.

        Vanguard boats departed at 1,5 billion pounds, another in those pounds.

        The main candidate for SSBN (X) is the replacement of Ohio, Virginia now costs $ 2,4-2,7 billion. The military is pushing for a replacement program with a budget of $ 97 billion.

        Serial Borey is also not cheap, about 1,2 billion dollars, on voiced money.
        1. Alexander Romanov
          Alexander Romanov 19 July 2016 08: 40
          0
          Quote: donavi49
          It is necessary to develop a project, prepare production, modernize basing places, prepare l / s, etc.

          And so it’s there, Mikhalych, then the estimate will grow by any two times laughing
        2. Manul
          Manul 19 July 2016 09: 09
          0
          Quote: donavi49
          Serial Borey is also not cheap, about 1,2 billion dollars, on voiced money.

          So can our Boreas offer them at a bargain price? Naturally an export option, in which the Mace will fly not Russia, but back or for other purposes wassat
        3. db1967
          db1967 19 July 2016 13: 32
          +1
          7.5 in pounds - today 10 yards dollars laughing
          Those. like gerald ford.
          Or 8 Boreev belay
          Nah ... This is NOT a cut good
          1. Vadim237
            Vadim237 19 July 2016 17: 07
            0
            So they will launch new warheads for them, since the old ones by the time they start putting into operation new nuclear submarines will be unsuitable, and that’s where the price of 31 billion comes from.
  6. Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 19 July 2016 08: 08
    +2
    He was especially smiling that the DPRK "poses a threat to Great Britain." They have their arguments ... If only I could look at the map or something.
    1. Alexander Romanov
      Alexander Romanov 19 July 2016 08: 13
      +1
      Quote: Mountain Shooter
      .. If only I looked at the map or something.

      She tried, looking for North Korea for 15 minutes, and not having seen, she came to the conclusion that this damn country really poses a threat.
  7. qwert111
    qwert111 19 July 2016 08: 19
    +2
    Britain is evil, it has more blood on its hands than on all, the most famous bastards of the world!
  8. Masya masya
    Masya masya 19 July 2016 08: 20
    +5
    That's how scary we are ... lol
    Afraid means respected ...
  9. Grach710
    Grach710 19 July 2016 08: 20
    0
    The Scots are not stupid. They will plant half a megattons into the Scapa Flow Ent and you will be glad to count with the probability of returning to the normal background in a thousand years hi
  10. Alexandr2637
    Alexandr2637 19 July 2016 08: 21
    -1
    I hope Russia as always has something to answer these rats.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 19 July 2016 10: 35
      +1
      Unfortunately, the Baltic Fleet cannot oppose the British fleet. And the fact that their missiles can, in the shortest possible time, deliver 300 warheads to anywhere in Russia is a serious threat to us.
      1. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa 20 July 2016 00: 14
        +1
        Quote: Vadim237
        Unfortunately, the Baltic Fleet cannot oppose the British fleet.

        Yes, there is no such task for the DKBF! The fight against the English fleet is the task of the fleet of the Russian Federation, and primarily the CSF! And in the current state of the Baltic Fleet, God forbid, hold the straits, and ensure internal communications ...
        Quote: Vadim237
        300 warheads anywhere in Russia

        Yes, we will stick in advance, dig up something in the database, immerse a thread in the sea ... Well, the rest will have to be neutrolized by missile defense ...
  11. darksoul
    darksoul 19 July 2016 08: 42
    +1
    faces change and the country as it was is woof..but ... it doesn’t sit on its shit .. island. We need to get out of strategic offensive arms and then it’s signed with the USA, but how can we ignore such downs?
  12. AlexTires
    AlexTires 19 July 2016 09: 34
    0
    The day before, British Prime Minister Teresa May declared the countries of Russia and North Korea threatening the security of the United Kingdom


    Each catches their Pokemon depending on the position .... belay
  13. bamoves
    bamoves 19 July 2016 14: 40
    0
    what an evil grandmother this Teresa May
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 19 July 2016 17: 10
      0
      Yes, you still wait, maybe she will announce tomorrow, to increase the British nuclear arsenal by several times.
  14. KRIG55
    KRIG55 19 July 2016 23: 22
    0
    Submarines will not save, here you need to take care of bomb shelters. In general, the islanders are eternal "friends" of Russia and it is simply stupid to expect anything else. And a woman she is a woman, even Margaret, even Teresa. She would have turned out to be a classic mother-in-law, a pity that she is a blank cartridge.