New British Nuclear Warhead
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
New British Nuclear Warhead
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/brit...clear-warhead/
Britain developing new, sovereign nuclear warhead
The United Kingdom has confirmed that it is developing a replacement UK sovereign nuclear warhead for its Trident missiles.The Ministry of Defence says in the ‘Defence Nuclear Enterprise Command Paper’ that “Replacing the UK’s warhead will ensure the UK’s deterrent remains cutting-edge, safe and effective”.
In the paper released today, they state:
“The UK committed to replacing our sovereign warhead in parliament in February 2021. Using modern and innovative developments in science, engineering, manufacturing and production at AWE, we will ensure the UK maintains an effective deterrent for as long as required.
The Replacement Warhead Programme has been designated the A21/Mk7 (also known as Astraea). It is being delivered in parallel with the US W93/Mk7 warhead and each nation is developing a sovereign design. This will be the first UK warhead developed in an era where we no longer test our weapons underground, upholding our voluntary moratorium on nuclear weapon test explosions.
This is possible because of the long history of technical expertise and extensive investment in UK modelling and simulation, supercomputing, materials science, shock and laser physics at AWE. Replacing the UK warhead is a long-term programme, driving modernisation and construction at AWE, HMNB Clyde and the hydrodynamics facility at EPURE, in France.”
For those unaware, the Trident II D5 missile is manufactured in the US. It comprises the missiles and supporting systems fitted on the submarine as well as training and shore support equipment.
Under the agreement with the United States, the UK accesses a shared missile pool. Missiles are loaded into our submarines in Kings Bay, Georgia, US. The UK-manufactured warheads are mated to the missiles at HMNB Clyde.
How will it be tested?
Well, the paper covers that too, stating:
“We have developed unique and world‑leading technology to validate the UK’s warhead stockpile. The Orion laser helps our physicists and scientists research the physics of those extreme temperatures and pressures found in a nuclear explosion to better understand the safety, reliability and performance of nuclear warheads. Orion is used collaboratively with UK academia and US teams in their National Laboratories.
Supercomputing is also a crucial capability, enabling simulations that allow us to develop a safe, assured warhead without detonation. AWE has recently commissioned a supercomputer named Valiant, one of the most powerful computers in the UK, to validate the design, performance and reliability of our nuclear warhead. These facilities will be used to bring our next warhead into service, upholding our voluntary moratorium on nuclear weapons test explosions.”
Britain developing new, sovereign nuclear warhead
The United Kingdom has confirmed that it is developing a replacement UK sovereign nuclear warhead for its Trident missiles.The Ministry of Defence says in the ‘Defence Nuclear Enterprise Command Paper’ that “Replacing the UK’s warhead will ensure the UK’s deterrent remains cutting-edge, safe and effective”.
In the paper released today, they state:
“The UK committed to replacing our sovereign warhead in parliament in February 2021. Using modern and innovative developments in science, engineering, manufacturing and production at AWE, we will ensure the UK maintains an effective deterrent for as long as required.
The Replacement Warhead Programme has been designated the A21/Mk7 (also known as Astraea). It is being delivered in parallel with the US W93/Mk7 warhead and each nation is developing a sovereign design. This will be the first UK warhead developed in an era where we no longer test our weapons underground, upholding our voluntary moratorium on nuclear weapon test explosions.
This is possible because of the long history of technical expertise and extensive investment in UK modelling and simulation, supercomputing, materials science, shock and laser physics at AWE. Replacing the UK warhead is a long-term programme, driving modernisation and construction at AWE, HMNB Clyde and the hydrodynamics facility at EPURE, in France.”
For those unaware, the Trident II D5 missile is manufactured in the US. It comprises the missiles and supporting systems fitted on the submarine as well as training and shore support equipment.
Under the agreement with the United States, the UK accesses a shared missile pool. Missiles are loaded into our submarines in Kings Bay, Georgia, US. The UK-manufactured warheads are mated to the missiles at HMNB Clyde.
How will it be tested?
Well, the paper covers that too, stating:
“We have developed unique and world‑leading technology to validate the UK’s warhead stockpile. The Orion laser helps our physicists and scientists research the physics of those extreme temperatures and pressures found in a nuclear explosion to better understand the safety, reliability and performance of nuclear warheads. Orion is used collaboratively with UK academia and US teams in their National Laboratories.
Supercomputing is also a crucial capability, enabling simulations that allow us to develop a safe, assured warhead without detonation. AWE has recently commissioned a supercomputer named Valiant, one of the most powerful computers in the UK, to validate the design, performance and reliability of our nuclear warhead. These facilities will be used to bring our next warhead into service, upholding our voluntary moratorium on nuclear weapons test explosions.”
The following 2 users liked this post by ORAC:
They have to do SOMETHING at Aldermaston & Burghfield
The following users liked this post:
unless it's offered overtime.....................
Can anyone think why it is necessary
I posted on another thread that new people coming into a job/responsibilities want to make changes to show their employment was the correct decision - is that the case here ?
I have to hope my comment is facetious, but even after devoting 15 seconds of intense thought, I am not sure of the utility of a new war-head. The current system has MIRV war-heads with selectable yields ( 10 KT and 100 KT ). A political decision limits the missiles to five war-heads each ( instead of eight ), and only eight missiles instead of 16. Apparently Johnson made a decison to increase the number of war-heads to the maximum, but the Wiki entry is confused and I can't say what is the true figure.
Anyway, can anyone speculate what the advantage of theis mammoth expenditure - many billions - will be ? It is already MIRV with selectable yield and I seriously doubt that increasing the number of war-heads is the intent, because GB could significantly increase the number of targets by using the maximum available capacity of missiles and war-heads which it is currently foregoing. Possibly this new war-head could have enhanced guidance/steering characteristics making it less liable to interception, but personally I doubt that.
If anyone involved wants to give the low-down, I absolutely promise not to tell anyone else.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triden...lear_programme)
I have to hope my comment is facetious, but even after devoting 15 seconds of intense thought, I am not sure of the utility of a new war-head. The current system has MIRV war-heads with selectable yields ( 10 KT and 100 KT ). A political decision limits the missiles to five war-heads each ( instead of eight ), and only eight missiles instead of 16. Apparently Johnson made a decison to increase the number of war-heads to the maximum, but the Wiki entry is confused and I can't say what is the true figure.
Anyway, can anyone speculate what the advantage of theis mammoth expenditure - many billions - will be ? It is already MIRV with selectable yield and I seriously doubt that increasing the number of war-heads is the intent, because GB could significantly increase the number of targets by using the maximum available capacity of missiles and war-heads which it is currently foregoing. Possibly this new war-head could have enhanced guidance/steering characteristics making it less liable to interception, but personally I doubt that.
If anyone involved wants to give the low-down, I absolutely promise not to tell anyone else.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triden...lear_programme)
Nuclear warheads have a life.
Nuclear warhead designs have a life. Not all components are available forever. Try buying a 386 chip for example, or some more of those fancy capacitors you last ordered in 1991.
Nuclear components have a half-life.
The opposition gets better at opposing , or at least we convince ourselves they have.
Just like aircraft designs really, new or better ways of doing things are found. Otherwise we would still be flying the GR4 instead of the Typhoon, and we would not need NGAD/GCAP/ The French/ German thing.
N
Nuclear warhead designs have a life. Not all components are available forever. Try buying a 386 chip for example, or some more of those fancy capacitors you last ordered in 1991.
Nuclear components have a half-life.
The opposition gets better at opposing , or at least we convince ourselves they have.
Just like aircraft designs really, new or better ways of doing things are found. Otherwise we would still be flying the GR4 instead of the Typhoon, and we would not need NGAD/GCAP/ The French/ German thing.
N
The following 2 users liked this post by Bengo:
Yeah, where can I find those lovely high voltage capacitors filled with PCBs that I could charge beyond their capacity, make them break down and they’d just recharge and take it? Now, they break down, are good for nothing and cost $150 to replace…
Nuclear warheads have a life.
Nuclear warhead designs have a life. Not all components are available forever. Try buying a 386 chip for example, or some more of those fancy capacitors you last ordered in 1991.
Nuclear components have a half-life.
The opposition gets better at opposing , or at least we convince ourselves they have.
Just like aircraft designs really, new or better ways of doing things are found. Otherwise we would still be flying the GR4 instead of the Typhoon, and we would not need NGAD/GCAP/ The French/ German thing.
N
Nuclear warhead designs have a life. Not all components are available forever. Try buying a 386 chip for example, or some more of those fancy capacitors you last ordered in 1991.
Nuclear components have a half-life.
The opposition gets better at opposing , or at least we convince ourselves they have.
Just like aircraft designs really, new or better ways of doing things are found. Otherwise we would still be flying the GR4 instead of the Typhoon, and we would not need NGAD/GCAP/ The French/ German thing.
N
The following users liked this post:
There are a lot of people at both Aldermaston and Burghfield - and they have to be kept employed if we intend to maintain a deterrent - think of it as an unavoidable overhead.
Another problem is that there are certain modern safety features than cannot be retrofitted to existing warheads.
Attending a presentation at a U.S. nuclear facility back in the 90s, one of the most vexing problems was how to attract and retain technical expertise when nothing new was being developed (U.S. “Stockpile Stewardship”)
Another problem is that there are certain modern safety features than cannot be retrofitted to existing warheads.
Another problem is that there are certain modern safety features than cannot be retrofitted to existing warheads.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fogbank for a component of US nuclear weapons that could no longer be made.
Everything about it is classified but they forgot to record how it was made. It took more than a decade and tens (hundreds?) of millions of dollars and they -think- they have duplicated it, but ... that is classified.
Everything about it is classified but they forgot to record how it was made. It took more than a decade and tens (hundreds?) of millions of dollars and they -think- they have duplicated it, but ... that is classified.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
And there are improvements. For example, the new warhead is reported to incorporate the MC4700 “super-fuze”, just about doubling the Pk against a hardened target.
https://thebulletin.org/2017/03/how-...ng-super-fuze/
https://thebulletin.org/2017/03/how-...ng-super-fuze/
If nuclear deterrence is meant to remain credible warheads must be kept on modern standards.
After rogue nations, organised crime might be next to arm up against us. Credible deterrence might be needed more than ever.
After rogue nations, organised crime might be next to arm up against us. Credible deterrence might be needed more than ever.
Attending a presentation at a U.S. nuclear facility back in the 90s, one of the most vexing problems was how to attract and retain technical expertise when nothing new was being developed (U.S. “Stockpile Stewardship”)
Another problem is that there are certain modern safety features than cannot be retrofitted to existing warheads.
Another problem is that there are certain modern safety features than cannot be retrofitted to existing warheads.
I feel that this is very foolish as nuclear weapons and organised crime do not mesh on the governmental side or in real life..
I may have been wrong inmy earlier comments about updating the warheads, but don't believe that credible deterrence for organanised crome require more than " BOOM "
I feel that this is very foolish as nuclear weapons and organised crime do not mesh on the governmental side or in real life..
I feel that this is very foolish as nuclear weapons and organised crime do not mesh on the governmental side or in real life..
The following 2 users liked this post by Lonewolf_50:
Organized crime normally is efficient and makes a profit - it also has a low tolerance of poor performance
The following 3 users liked this post by Asturias56:
