Nuclear SLBM Test

The M51 SLBM is the French Navy's future submarine launched ballistic missile, designed to replace the M45 SLBM (In French terminology the MSBS - Mer-Sol-Balistique-Stratégique Sea-ground-Strategic ballistic).

Each missile carries six independently targetable TN 75 thermonuclear warheads.

The three-stage engine of the M51 is directly derived from the propellant boosters of Ariane 5.
More..
The missiles are a compromise over the M5 SLBM design, which is to have a range of 11,000 km (6,200 miles) and carry 10 TNO MIRV of the new generation (Tête Nucléaire Océanique, Oceanic nuclear warhead). The M51 will enter service in 2010.


Flight tests

The M51 performed its first flight test (unarmed) on the 9 November 2006 from the French missile flight test centre in Biscarrosse (Landes). The target was reached twenty minutes later, in the north-west of the Atlantic Ocean.[1]

A second successful test was carried out on the 21 June 2007.

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• nuclear
• french
• missile
• submarine
• war
• explosion
• death
• launched
• ballistic
• technology
• military
• command
• destruction
• test
• science
• physics
• flight
• space
• warfare
• new
• fast
• engineering
• state
• contend
• fight
• struggle
• aerospace
• ariane
• ocean
• strategic

[fairgirl7]

I think the French show wisdom and the British are fooling themselves. Didn't DeGaulle in the 1960's say that France had to defend herself from enemies everywhere? Look at today. Iran, North Korea, a resurgent China. The French should maintain their vigilance as the United States does. With the resources of the globe shrinking a strong defense is vital to any nation.

[cutterschoicenotmine]

@fairgirl7 You neglect to tell us how The British are fooling themselves.

[kitolad]

@fairgirl7 Truth has never been told better.

[francepatriote1]

M51 missile

[bestamerica]

'

where this missile fly to where hit

[zobzobby]

it looks like a big vibro..

[22reTOYOTA]

Sure does look like a Trident D5.

[1RadicalOne]

There is this place called Iran ruled by a maniac, who has both the intelligence and the necessary beliefs.

And this nearby place called Israel that is under the idea it can act with absolute impunity, causing as much death as it wants.

And there are these people called End-Timers in the US who want the entire Middle East to become a big smoking pit and who actively work towards that goal by stirring unrest.

[kjdavey]

@1RadicalOne Yep as I said I concur with you that against a radical group deterrence as it exists today is not particular effective. However today it really takes a national level of resources to "launch" an ICMB per se. I find it very hard to believe that any group secular or religious can galvanize to whole nation to voluntary self destruction. No the real threat today are man portable bombs in the kilo-ton range. And for that deterrence is not a viable strategy.

[1RadicalOne]

How does deterrence exist when the other side knows that if they launch, they will be destroyed, their ultimate goal? What is there to stop them from launching?

[kjdavey]

@1RadicalOne Point one falls apart because it asserts that "if" some condition were to become true then the argument falls apart. But that condition is NOT true so the argument stands. In todays world Nuclear deterrent IS effective because there is no 'immunity' Don't get me wrong I would love to see it. Make nukes obsolete would be a great thing. The second point is well taken. It is a current strategic problem. However it does not mean that the deterrence does not exist.

[1RadicalOne]

The deterrence argument fails on two counts.

One, there is the possibility of developing immunity, such as through Reagan's infamous "Star Wars" program. That would have made the protected country not afraid of retaliation.

Two, those who do not fear - or even want - death and destruction. Such as the religious fundamentalists in the Middle East and south US.

[kjdavey]

@1RadicalOne That is an incredible narrow point of view. The simple matter of fact is that there are nations in this world that would use such weapons indiscriminately to further there political aims. The reason they don't is due to nations like ourselves that use such weapons as a deterrent against such a threat. Those missiles do more to prevent war than any other single thing in our military.

[1RadicalOne]

Impressive, but abhorrent. A device designed to do nothing but murder millions of civilians.

[StiviGun1]

@cutterschoicenotmine They are fooling themselves by pursuing a nuclear disarmament without paying attention to the resurgent Russia and China who, not only that are not pursuing a disarmament, but they are developing new nuclear weapons. Just check out Russia's new RS-24 and Bulava ICBMs. Those are in terrible contradiction with the disarmament treaties.

[StiviGun1]

@fairgirl7 Don't forget about the resurgent Russia. And if you ask me, the US doesn't maintain its vigilance the way it should be.

[atticana]

@jetaddicted Thank you for replying to my question and yes, I see now that the historical experience in France would give people there a different perspective on such matters. Pacifists in Britain are people who take freedom for granted, never having known anything else. My opinion on pacifism is that is an indulgence for those who dwell securely

[jetaddicted]

@atticana there is of course, an antinuclear movement in france.

pacifism has no boundaries.

but then warmongerism neither.

having been defeated and occupied not so long ago gives us another perspective i guess.

and knowing that whoever attacked us today would become an ashtray is somewhat reassuring

[fairgirl7]

@cutterschoicenotmine The premise seems to be that Great Britain should let its defense rest under the American nuclear umbrella. Remember the 1950's when France, Britain and Israel attacked Egypt; America demanded they all cease their invasion and they stopped immediately. What sovereign nation would ever allow its freedom to be subject to another power???

[atticana]

There is something that puzzles me. In Britain there has been a strong movement against the UK having its own nuclear deterrent but, as far as I am aware, there has been no such movement in France. Can anybody tell me why this is?