British Nuclear Submarine Service

After a failed 2016 test, one would expect the arsenal checks, followed by the next tests to find out if the changes applied for work.
Nothing like that followed.

Exactly, so the arrogance... either from the British or the Americans, is that these are trident missiles like we (US) use so of course they work just fine, so these tests are not actually tests, they are performance art to show the Russians and the Chinese how amazingly powerful we are.

Of course when they do this and get failures both times it sends the exact opposite message.

Tridents had many successful starts. It is still one of the most advanced SLBMs. The American ones still shoot very well and are still capable of destroying Russia or China, at least for today.

And that is exactly a good example of this arrogance... you have to ask... the Brits seem to be paying top dollar for their American stuff... are the Americans giving them their reject stock? Do they just not care? Do they still secretly hate the Limeys and this is their revenge?

The Russians also had multiple failures of their SLBM.

They had failures while developing the Bulava, but since it has entered service it seems to be going rather well and Liner seems to be an excellent missile.

Moreover, there is no 100% effectiveness in all types of weapon systems.

Very true, but the last two British tests have shown 100% failure rates with no extra testing... and clearly different problems each time...

The S-500 will not be able to stop a massive attack of Trident II and MM missiles. They can install decoys on MM and Trident that pass through the atmosphere, etc. Russian ABM systems will not stop a massive US attack on Russia.

Ironically the US missiles will be coming from specific locations so they will mostly be coming from specific directions and actually fitting S-500 missiles with nuclear warheads and basing them near the Russian border with Europe means they can probably shoot down most US missiles over enemy territory with much of the fallout landing on enemy territory.

Their air defence against aircraft and general threats has proven to be rather the best in the world so the assumption that their ABM system might be very good as well is not an absurd assumption either.

Russia is a big country with targets that are spread out...

Apart from the fact that the S-500 is against IRBM,

S-500 is for incoming weapons moving at 7km/s so most threats could be dealt with actually.

The Tridents themselves carry over 1,000 MIRV and are capable of carrying over 2,000 MIRV.

But are only ever actually loaded with one RV...

The S-300W was never designed to destroy ICBM warheads, the same as the S-300WM, S-300W4 and S-500.

The first S-300V was intended to shoot down IRBMs and MRBMs but they were banned by the INF treaty... the S-300V4 can intercept targets moving at 4.8km/s which sounds a bit fast for the average Scud variant don't you think?

Unfortunately the idiots in the US think tanks seems to be as poorly informed as you are. The US has the most decrepit nuclear deterrent in existence right now.

It is totally understandable because they have the smallest defence budget and the strictest rules regarding their armed forces so of course they have no strategic nuclear defence equipment and weapons and their stocks of ammo and weapons has been emptied by a little scrap in the Ukraine which was all about protecting the US people and was obviously money well spend... wait... what?

They spend more money that the next 50 countries combined and they are in a military pact with many of those next 50 countries called HATO but they can't make artillery shells or nuclear weapons... but don't you dare ask where the money went... that is a national security secret.

No S 300V can engage targets with a speed of up to 3 km/s. These are MRBM missiles, not ICBM missiles.

S-300V has not been in use since the 1970s, the S-300V4 can intercept targets doing 4.8km/s and the new models can probably do better.

So how many times has the S-500 intercepted during ICBM tests? Because the US has made several ICBM interceptions with its NMD system

The US has had rather more failures with NMD and these failures continue to this day... they just don't talk about it a lot.

A bit like the recent attempt by the US to land on the Moon that failed and no one mentioned at all.

Even half of what they have will be enough to reach Russia and there will be no Russia.

But that is not the point... the UK is spending an enormous amount of taxpayer cash for these useless pieces of shit... when they say special relationship they mean the US military rides the UK military bare back... and I am not talking about that German politician... bare back means anal sex with no condom... usually with a partner of disrepute where there is a risk of catching something if you know what I mean.

Gambling.

That guy is delusional... he talks about power projection of the British forces despite their dire state... he doesn't mention why the UK needs power projection... other than to please the US.

There are no threats to the UK, and the western MICs in general are so corrupt any money spent is wasted.

The UK could probably save about 500 billion by getting rid of its nuclear weapons capability and maybe their PMs will realise they are no longer the big bullies they used to be and start treating other countries with respect instead of trying to dictate to others what they should or should not be doing.

He said the UK Navy was good... two aircraft carriers sitting in port under repair and 6 destroyers with not much better armament than Russian frigates that are spending lots of time being repaired too... they don't have enough ships to deploy a single carrier with enough escorts to operate with it.... how the mighty have fallen.

He also claims Russia no longer has a carrier... when it is just completing a significant refit and upgrade and is about to go back into the water for testing... the guy does not know what he is talking about.

A single Russian corvette with 8 Zircon missiles could sink most of the British fleet in one go and he dismisses the Russian Fleet.

No wonder the UK military is in such a state with such experts.

Using them, they almost broke the neck of the British. They lacked some luck, as easy as that.

The small carriers the British had made the entire mission possible but also made it marginal.

If it had happened 5 or 10 years earlier the British would have had proper fixed wing carriers with Phantom fighterbombers with decent BVR missiles and supersonic speed and decent flight range and endurance and a decent AWACS platform that could see over islands. They also could have mounted strikes against the airfield on the island with Phantoms or Buccaneers instead of the horrible risky and probably enormously expensive deployment of a V bomber for the job.

Equally if Argentina had had MiG-23s with R-23R and R-23T air to air missiles the Harriers would have been cleaned up pretty quickly... those side mounted engine nozzles makes the Harrier horribly vulnerable to IR guided missiles.

In the very early 1980s they might have been too soon for the Kh-31 and Kh-35, but while they held the island the Soviets could have shipped some land based anti ship missiles... I rather suspect the British boats would have struggled with dealing with three or four at a time.

The UK don't even have ships which can do at sea ressuply anymore. And now the strategic nuclear submarines seem to be expensive paperweights. Their destroyers showed in the Red Sea confrontation with the Houthis that they don't have any surface attack missiles.

Their lack of support ships is criminal because you really don't have a force if you have no organic resupply capacity, although it might be a clever ploy because the first priority of the enemy will be to sink their support ships and they will waste a lot of time trying to track them down and sink them... not knowing they don't exist...

Add to that their destroyers don't like the warm waters of the Med, and their carriers are in drydock being repaired and have spent more time being repaired than they have being operational... Despite being brand new.