Talk:UGM-133 Trident II

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ohio submarine SLBM load[edit]

Note that currently the Ohio submarines due to New START treat compliance the 14 Ohio SSBNs will have 4 of 24 SLBM Launch tubes removed on all boats

Reference for article insertion included below


--jcislowski (talk) 14:38, 13 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  1. ^ Baker, Peter (13 May 2010). "Obama Expands Modernization of Nuclear Arsenal". The New York Times. Retrieved 13 June 2016. {{cite news}}: More than one of |author= and |last= specified (help)

Trident II missiles are carried by 14 US Ohio and four British Vanguard-class submarines, with 24 missiles on each Ohio class and 16 missiles on each Vanguard class (the number of missiles on Ohio-class submarines will be reduced to 20 each starting in 2023,[19]

citation 19 states that the reduction to 20 missiles per submarine will be completed by 2018. This has already been completed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8000:9D00:694F:311D:AC96:326E:62B (talk) 16:38, 10 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please provide a citation for its completion. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 19:46, 10 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In this 2021 "NUCLEAR TRIAD DOD and DOE Face Challenges Mitigating Risks to U.S. Deterrence Efforts" report to congress on report page 18 it speaks of these changes in the past tense ... "240 deployed submarine-launched ballistic missiles on ballistic missile submarines. Though each submarine was designed with 24 missile tubes, DOD rendered inoperable four launch tubes on each submarine, resulting in 14 submarines with 20 missile tubes each (for a total of 280), in which up to 240 missiles are loaded at any given time. "
If I can find a better reference I will add it but for now you can see that it was already completed (talk) 02:33, 16 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As close as I can get without filing a FOIA for more details. The compliance data is published only in aggregates. To get specifics you need to request it with a FOIA.
"The full unclassified New START treaty data set released by State Department yesterday shows that the US reduction of its nuclear forces to meet the treaty limit had been completed by September 1, 2017, more than four months early before the deadline next month on February 5, 2018."
I looked in the state department archives of the "bureau of arms control verification" and confirmed only the aggregate details are published 2603:8000:9D00:694F:F81D:CCFD:C16D:4DBB (talk) 21:39, 16 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reference #6 does not say that[edit]

Reference #6 does not say the range if less than fully loaded. It does not really even say 4230 miles at all. Unless someone can correct me, I'm going to edit our reference #6, which leaves the range figure unreferenced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitplane01 (talkcontribs) 08:49, 18 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Speed, CEP[edit]

I clarified some issues with speed (deleted the idiotic exaggerations, and inserted proper referenced numbers), and clarified the problem with CEP. As stated clearly by the 90-120 meters CEP is achieved by adding GPS to the picture, without GPS, the accuracy is ~350 m. (talk) 17:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)Pavel Golikov.Reply[reply]

The CEPs currently stated are garbage. The RVs are unguided, only the bus is guided, so why would W76s be down at 381m? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:2590:D701:FC17:B6B9:553D:DC18 (talk) 20:24, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

counterforce second strike?[edit]

Why are people who seem to have no clue about nuclear warfare writing articles? What is the counterforce second strike? What is this? A nuclear attack on enemy's empty silos? After enemy launched everything it had in a first striker? As for counterforce capability of Trident: If you you look at the history of development of this missile, you will understand that it never had a counterforce capability. First version of Trident deployed was UGM-96A, which had 100 kt warheads and ~350 meters CEP (, which means its counterforce capability (especially against SS-18 missile silos) was very limited (if it existed at all). Newer Trident has improved CEP (only because of use of GPS guidance, which might not even be available in a nuclear conflict), but the bulk of russian ICBMs (and later almost all of them) will be mobile and therefore nearly impossible to detect, so Trident-2's precision is irrelevant. So, a quick recap: Trident 1 was not counterforce capable and Trident 2 arrived too late to be a serious counterforce weapon. What is so unclear? Why people like to confuse Trident 1 and 2 and claim Trident 2 had great capability against soviet silos. Trident 2 did not even exist then. (talk) 17:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)Pavel Golikov.Reply[reply]

You have no accurate source for the CEP of Trident I or II, and the same goes for the operation of the guidance system. Being uncivil about the writing regarding a classified topic for which no detailed information has ever been leaked is silly. You don't know how accurate D-5 is, nor do you know if it utilizes GPS. Also, the conception of second-strike counter-force is perfectly reasonable in the context of a limited first strike. For example, if RUS launches against US strategic sites, they will still have birds on the ground that are not useful in an intercontinental attack. Also, if RUS decides to launch a surprise attack, they will leave most of their nuclear-capable submarine fleet in port as RUS currently lacks the capability to maintain regular alert patrols.~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:18, 23 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If I may add, the purpose of this article is not to explore every possible scenario that the missile can/may be used in. The Trident II's main purpose (as per the US Government & Lockheed Martin) [1] is Seaborne Nuclear Deterrence. Deterrence is a dissuasion for the enemy to attack in the first place. Deterrence is a threat of retaliation. IF deterrence is a threat of retaliation, sure it can be used as a "conterforce second strike", but that would be monotonous to list all the possibilities- when we know what it's purpose is. It is better to leave it as "Nuclear Deterrence" and be done with it. Jake M Ingram (talk) 22:18, 24 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  1. ^ "Ships, Sensors, and Weapons". Retrieved December 24, 2014.

Removed rationale material[edit]

Removed paragraph ending 'If the Soviet Union could knock out the majority of these missiles and strategic bombers when on the ground, it would have left the United States with no retaliatory capabilities.' As Trident I already existed, this is untrue. More to the point, it's un-sourced. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 19:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New NEWS today, for future editing (two test launchings)[edit]

The big stick, (naval sword-rattling?)

Headline-1: Navy launches second test missile off Southern California coast

QUOTE: "The U.S. Navy said it launched a second -- and final -- missile in a planned exercise Monday afternoon from a submarine off the Southern California coast.

The second test launch of the Trident II (D5) missile from a ballistic submarine in the Pacific Ocean took place Monday afternoon, the Navy said. The blast-off took place to far less fanfare than Saturday night’s launch, which provoked residents from San Francisco to Mexico to take to social media, posting photos of an eerie-looking bluish-green plume smeared above the Pacific." -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 07:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing.Reply[reply]

Primary sources: [1] and [2] Geomartin (talk) 12:35, 12 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bad sources[edit]

Footnotes 11 and 12 are not appropriate. They cite an unnamed (British?) magazine, but cite it as the image hosting service they have put the scans on. The original magazine source should be cited (and should be vetted as to whether it is a reliable source). The use in the text seems to imply the MARV was/is deployed and that is not clear at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:26, 6 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Caspar Weinberger was appointed SecDef in 1981. John Lehman was appointed SecNav in 1981. Weinberger was never SecNav, and was definitely not in 1982, as mentioned the article. (talk) 07:13, 20 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]