# Nuclear subs and their nuclear missiles **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [August 14, 2012, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-subs-and-their-nuclear-missiles/631499 "2012-08-14T20:34:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![yoyodyne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/a9a28c/32.png) [@yoyodyne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yoyodyne)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2012, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-subs-and-their-nuclear-missiles/631499/41 "2012-08-16T16:54:04Z")
> [@Rich\_G7subs](#): > > IE Holy Loch Scotland or La Madelena Italy And (once upon a time) Rota, Spain. ---
**Author:** ![aruvqan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aruvqan/32/2891_2.png) [@aruvqan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aruvqan)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2012, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-subs-and-their-nuclear-missiles/631499/42 "2012-08-16T18:04:38Z")
> [@yoyodyne](#): > > And (once upon a time) Rota, Spain. Toulon France. On a lighter note, for 14 million euros you can get the old sub base near Tromso Norway. Nothing like an evil overlord’s lair inside a mountain with an underground sub pen! [I understand the monthly electricity bill alone was on the order of 50 000 euro :eek: I don’t even want to think about _heating_ the place through an arctic circle winter!] ---
**Author:** ![Rich\_G7subs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/85e7bf/32.png) [@Rich\_G7subs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rich_G7subs)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2012, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-subs-and-their-nuclear-missiles/631499/43 "2012-08-16T18:18:25Z")
> [@aruvqan](#): > > Toulon France. > > On a lighter note, for 14 million euros you can get the old sub base near Tromso Norway. Nothing like an evil overlord’s lair inside a mountain with an underground sub pen! > > [I understand the monthly electricity bill alone was on the order of 50 000 euro :eek: I don’t even want to think about _heating_ the place through an arctic circle winter!] Cool, then I can threaten to destroy the world unless they pay me … 1 **MILLION** dollars! Can I have sharks with frickin’ lasers on their heads, too? 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Hermitian](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hermitian/32/470_2.png) [@Hermitian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hermitian)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2012, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-subs-and-their-nuclear-missiles/631499/44 "2012-08-16T22:45:55Z")
> [@Rich\_G7subs](#): > > Uh, yes they do. Some are (or were ) actually stationed there. IE Holy Loch Scotland or La Madelena Italy I clarified on post 27 that it was my understanding that they do not now, nor probably have they in the last decade (unless someone can provide info otherwise). ---
**Author:** ![Blakeyrat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecd19e/32.png) [@Blakeyrat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blakeyrat)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2012, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-subs-and-their-nuclear-missiles/631499/45 "2012-08-16T22:59:54Z")
> [@drewtwo99](#): > > First of all, all subs are “nuclear” nowadays, in the sense that they all use nuclear reactors to generate their power. That can’t possibly be true. ---
**Author:** ![boytyperanma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4491bb/32.png) [@boytyperanma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/boytyperanma)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2012, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-subs-and-their-nuclear-missiles/631499/46 "2012-08-16T23:30:56Z")
On the note of nuclear weapons on aircraft carriers. Do we keep any nuclear weapons in our arsenal that are practical to deploy from an aircraft carrier? It’s my understanding none of the craft the navy still uses on aircraft carriers are considered ‘nuclear capable.’ Certification aside, we aren’t really in the business of little nuclear weapons, while we have developed some, it’s just not what we need for ‘deterrent’ None of our current bombers can take off or land on an aircraft carrier right? How big are the armaments typically used on carrier based jets and how do our nuclear warheads size up against them? ---
**Author:** ![Hail\_Ants](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/dc4da7/32.png) [@Hail\_Ants](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hail_Ants)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2012, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-subs-and-their-nuclear-missiles/631499/47 "2012-08-17T00:04:48Z")
> [@Blakeyrat](#): > > That can’t possibly be true. As \*\*Bookkeeper \*\*stated above, the _United States Navy_ has had an all-nuclear powered sub fleet for quite some time now. The [Barbel class](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbel_class_submarine) were the last diesel-electric attack subs (I don’t think the US ever had a non-nuclear powered boomer) and they were decommissioned in the late 80s. There were probably a few odd diesel/electric subs that were actual commissioned US Naval vessels, but were only for training, testing new weapons, systems etc. and never sent on war patrol ([USS Dolphin](http://www.dieselpowermag.com/news/0702dp_uss_dolphin_diesel_submarine/viewall.html)). The US Navy actually used to have one nuclear powered research sub, the [NR-1](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NR-1). Although a Naval (i.e. military) vessel, it contained no offensive weapons, had a crew of about a dozen men, and a small, trashcan-sized reactor. During one of Robert Ballard’s expeditions he somehow arranged for its presence because, being nuclear powered, it had plenty of bright floodlights it could use underwater indefinitely. I know the Brits used to maintain both nuclear & diesel/electric subs, don’t know if they still have the D/Es or have retired them. Russia certainly has many D/Es subs because always being strapped for cash (particularly in the old Soviet days) they would only want to retire a sub basically when it, ah, sank! > [@boytyperanma](#): > > On the note of nuclear weapons on aircraft carriers. Do we keep any nuclear weapons in our arsenal that are practical to deploy from an aircraft carrier? It’s my understanding none of the craft the navy still uses on aircraft carriers are considered ‘nuclear capable.’ > > Certification aside, we aren’t really in the business of little nuclear weapons, while we have developed some, it’s just not what we need for ‘deterrent’ > > None of our current bombers can take off or land on an aircraft carrier right? How big are the armaments typically used on carrier based jets and how do our nuclear warheads size up against them? Nuclear weapons are not limited to just bombers, subs & silos (though those three make up the US Triad nuclear deterrent). Modern fighter and ground attack aircraft can all be fitted with nuclear-armed missiles, bombs, heck even nuclear depth-charges! And they all can be (and are) carrier-based. We have weapons which are called _‘dial-a-yield’_ that literally have a dial (of sorts) on them and can be set to detonate with a range from between tens to hundreds of kilotons. Military likes to keep its options as open as possible. ---
**Author:** ![Mekhazzio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b38774/32.png) [@Mekhazzio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mekhazzio)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2012, 11:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-subs-and-their-nuclear-missiles/631499/48 "2012-08-17T11:35:15Z")
> [@Hail\_Ants](#): > > Russia certainly has many D/Es subs because always being strapped for cash (particularly in the old Soviet days) they would only want to retire a sub basically when it, ah, sank! Diesel subs aren’t just old moldering leftovers, they’re still being actively developed. The Lada is still being worked on and the Kilo, its predecessor, is newer than some of their nuclear designs. The Australian Collins class is an example of a Western country going with D/E for modern subs. ---
**Author:** ![AdamF](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/adamf/32/6246_2.png) [@AdamF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AdamF)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2012, 12:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-subs-and-their-nuclear-missiles/631499/49 "2012-08-17T12:57:32Z")
> [@Hail\_Ants](#): > > Nuclear weapons are not limited to just bombers, subs & silos (though those three make up the US Triad nuclear deterrent). Modern fighter and ground attack aircraft can all be fitted with nuclear-armed missiles, bombs, heck even nuclear depth-charges! And they all can be (and are) carrier-based. We have weapons which are called _‘dial-a-yield’_ that literally have a dial (of sorts) on them and can be set to detonate with a range from between tens to hundreds of kilotons. Military likes to keep its options as open as possible. IIRC the US has decommissioned all tactical nukes except for free-fall bombs. These can be carried by the Hornet and Super Hornet and F-35 eventually. However, there are now no nuclear missiles for these fighters. The only missiles left are the ballistic and cruise missiles. ---
**Author:** ![Gray\_Ghost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/c0e974/32.png) [@Gray\_Ghost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gray_Ghost)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2012, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-subs-and-their-nuclear-missiles/631499/50 "2012-08-17T16:51:26Z")
> [@boytyperanma](#): > > On the note of nuclear weapons on aircraft carriers. Do we keep any nuclear weapons in our arsenal that are practical to deploy from an aircraft carrier? It’s my understanding none of the craft the navy still uses on aircraft carriers are considered ‘nuclear capable.’ > > Certification aside, we aren’t really in the business of little nuclear weapons, while we have developed some, it’s just not what we need for ‘deterrent’ > > None of our current bombers can take off or land on an aircraft carrier right? How big are the armaments typically used on carrier based jets and how do our nuclear warheads size up against them? > [@Hail\_Ants](#): > > …I know the Brits used to maintain both nuclear & diesel/electric subs, don’t know if they still have the D/Es or have retired them… > > Modern fighter and ground attack aircraft can all be fitted with nuclear-armed missiles, bombs, heck even nuclear depth-charges! And they all can be (and are) carrier-based. We have weapons which are called _‘dial-a-yield’_ that literally have a dial (of sorts) on them and can be set to detonate with a range from between tens to hundreds of kilotons. Military likes to keep its options as open as possible. > [@AdamF](#): > > IIRC the US has decommissioned all tactical nukes except for free-fall bombs. These can be carried by the Hornet and Super Hornet and F-35 eventually. However, there are now no nuclear missiles for these fighters. The only missiles left are the ballistic and cruise missiles. **boytyperanma** : With the retirement of the A-6 bomber, and F-14 fighter (and later, fighter/bomber) the remaining bomber flying off of U.S. carriers is the F/A-18 [Hornet](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-18)/[SuperHornet](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_F/A-18E/F_Super_Hornet) (E and F-versions). At least until the [F-35](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-35_Lightning_II) shows up. In addition, the Marines fly the [AV-8B Harrier II](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_AV-8B_Harrier_II). The Harriers don’t deploy as part of a USN carrier air wing, but I’m sure that plans have been drawn up for them to deploy off a carrier if the need arose. Per the [Bulletin of Atomic Scientists listing](http://www.thebulletin.org/files/066003008.pdf) (page 2 at the .pdf) of the U.S. arsenal in 2010, the U.S. had 400 [B61](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B61_nuclear_bomb) deployed nuclear gravity bombs with the Full-Fuzing Option mentioned by **Hail Ants.** 200 of those were stored in Europe, for use by NATO and U.S. forces. While the F/A-18 is listed as capable of carrying this non-strategic nuclear weapon, [comments made by Dr. Christopher A. Ford](http://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=234443), United States Special Representative for Nuclear Nonproliferation in 2007 would seem to indicate that the weapon has been removed from deployment by naval aircraft. > [@](#): > > In addition, the United States has removed all non-strategic nuclear weapons from surface ships and naval aircraft. It has withdrawn from Europe and retired all nuclear artillery shells, Lance missile warheads, and naval nuclear depth bombs. Now, if the B-61s carried by Hornets are classed as ‘strategic’, then they still could be deployed and Mr. Ford’s comments would still be correct. The Bulletin classes B-61 variants used by the Navy as non-strategic, but nothing says that the USN had to adopt the Bulletin’s definition. And even if they aren’t currently deployed on aircraft carriers, they can be redeployed if necessary. FWIW, the wiki for the [Nimitz CVN](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimitz-class_aircraft_carrier) notes both that, > [@](#): > > The presence of nuclear weapons on board U.S. aircraft carriers since the end of the Cold War has neither been confirmed nor denied by the U.S. government. and quotes RADM John Blake, Commander of Carrier Strike Group 11 during a visit by USN Nimitz to Chemnai, India in 2007, as saying, > [@](#): > > “We do not disclose the presence or absence of nuclear warheads (on board Nimitz),” he said. “The US policy, however, is that we do not routinely deploy nuclear weapons on board Nimitz.” The B-61 is undergoing a [controversial](http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2012/05/b61cost.php) [Life Extension Program](http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2011/06/b61-12.php). Despite the controversy, as it’s one of the only two gravity bombs left in the U.S. deployed arsenal—and the only ‘small’ one—I’m sure it’ll still be around for awhile. (The other is the [B-83](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B83_nuclear_bomb) 1.2 Mt device, currently the most powerful in the US nuclear arsenal. The guess is that the B-2/B-52 carries it, but the wiki for the B83 lists the F/A-18 as capable of carrying it too.) In addition, despite my posting earlier in the thread that the nuclear-capable SLCM were retired in 1992, that’s incorrect. The H.W. Bush Administration did try to, but the TLAM/N SLCM was retained in the Clinton Administration’s re-evaluation. Whether it was ever re-deployed, or whether the TLAM/Ns have been sitting on a shelf since 1992, I don’t know. Per [the 2009 Bulletin of Atomic Scientists look](http://www.thebulletin.org/files/065002008.pdf) at U.S. nuclear weapons, it wasn’t deployed in 2009, but 1/3 of the missiles and warheads were kept at the two Strategic Weapons Facilities at King’s Bay and Bangor; the other 2/3 in ‘inactive reserve’. Since the [2010 Nuclear Posture Review Report](http://www.defense.gov/npr/docs/2010%20Nuclear%20Posture%20Review%20Report.pdf), It’s currently in the middle of the retirement process. I’ve no idea if any of the missiles are currently still kept—in immediately-deployable condition, inactive reserve, or simply cannibalized to make more conventional TLAMs—but I strongly doubt that the warheads have been dismantled yet. As to what’s the largest conventional weapon that goes off a carrier, my guess is that it would be a guided bomb using the [Mk-84](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_84_bomb) bomb body. This bomb weighs ~1 ton, and is filled with 945 lb of high explosive. More esoteric, larger bombs such as the [GBU-43 “MOAB”](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GBU-43/B_Massive_Ordnance_Air_Blast_bomb) are designed to be dropped from C-130 transport aircraft, which I don’t believe could fly from a carrier (They certainly don’t in normal service.). Large, earth penetrating bombs such as the Desert Storm era-[GBU-28](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GBU-28), and GBU-37 and [GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GBU-57), are meant to be dropped by larger aircraft than the F/A-18. Though if you told me that tests were run with the GBU-28 by the SuperHornet, (or the F-14) I wouldn’t be surprised. I don’t know whether there are still any Fuel-Air Explosive bombs in the stockpile, such as the older CBU-55 and -[72](http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/cbu-72.htm), which were also used in Desert Storm by U.S. Marine Corps’ A-6 bombers, though not OIF, IIRC. I don’t know whether the Hornet/SuperHornet or Harrier II is capable of carrying those bombs. Those FAE, given ideal conditions, should produce an explosion in excess of that caused by a Mk-84. Finally, one of the [JSOW](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-154_Joint_Standoff_Weapon) variants used by the Navy has a [BROACH](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BROACH_warhead) two part warhead, [giving it ~double the effectiveness against hard targets as an equivalent weight, conventionally armed TLAM.](http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/weapons/q0120.shtml) By contrast, the smallest “dial-able” yield for any of the B61 nuclear bomb variants is 300 tons of TNT. There’s just a tremendous difference in magnitude between even the largest conventional bombs and the smallest nuclear ones. Finally, the Royal Navy decommissioned its last SSKs, the [Upholder-class](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upholder_class_submarine), in 1994. [They currently are an all-nuclear service](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Navy_Submarine_Service), (not counting DSRV-type vehicles), with their newest class of SSNs, the[Astute-class](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astute_class_submarine), commissioned in 2010. ---
**Author:** ![Pushkin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ee59a6/32.png) [@Pushkin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pushkin)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2012, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-subs-and-their-nuclear-missiles/631499/51 "2012-08-18T18:26:50Z")
> [@aruvqan](#): > > [640 class boomer](http://www.flickr.com/photos/deadmans_handle/6408942765/)in Holy Loch / Faslane Scotland. Unless something funky has happened, that is a nuke in a foreign port A little box for the guard on duty on deck too, cute 😛 ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2012, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-subs-and-their-nuclear-missiles/631499/52 "2012-08-18T19:32:16Z")
> [@Pushkin](#): > > A little box for the guard on duty on deck too, cute 😛 A Nessie shelter, no doubt. ---
**Author:** ![Hail\_Ants](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/dc4da7/32.png) [@Hail\_Ants](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hail_Ants)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2012, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-subs-and-their-nuclear-missiles/631499/53 "2012-08-18T22:40:13Z")
Damn world peace & all its annoying treaties! Makes everything so complicated & less fun! 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2012, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-subs-and-their-nuclear-missiles/631499/54 "2012-08-19T01:52:09Z")
> [@Gray\_Ghost](#): > > **boytyperanma** : With the retirement of the A-6 bomber, and F-14 fighter (and later, fighter/bomber) the remaining bomber flying off of U.S. carriers is the F/A-18… [The Royal Navy] currently [is] an all-nuclear service, (not counting DSRV-type vehicles), with their newest class of SSNs, the[Astute-class](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astute_class_submarine), commissioned in 2010. Thanks for all that! Most informative. ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2012, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-subs-and-their-nuclear-missiles/631499/55 "2012-08-19T02:37:52Z")
The Brits will win any naval engagement not just from historical tradition, but because they have such cool names for ships. What ship could survive an encounter with HMS Indefatigable or HMS Agamemnon? ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2012, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-subs-and-their-nuclear-missiles/631499/56 "2012-08-20T01:34:46Z")
> [@carnivorousplant](#): > > The Brits will win any naval engagement not just from historical tradition, but because they have such cool names for ships. > What ship could survive an encounter with HMS Indefatigable or HMS Agamemnon? All bets are off if you have the misfortune to find yourself serving on HMS _Candytuft_ or _Gay Bruiser_, though. > **[Flower-class corvette](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flower_class_corvette)** > > The Flower-class corvette (also referred to as the Gladiolus class after the lead ship) was a British class of 294 corvettes used during World War II by the Allied navies particularly as anti-submarine convoy escorts in the Battle of the Atlantic. Royal Navy ships of this class were named after flowers. > Most served during World War II with the Royal Navy (RN) and Royal Canadian Navy (RCN). Several ships built largely in Canada were transferred from the RN to the United States Navy (USN) under... > **[HMS Gay Bruiser](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Gay_Bruiser_(P1044))** > > HMS Gay Bruiser was a Gay-class fast patrol boat of the Royal Navy. She was built by Vosper, Portchester, and launched on 19 December 1952. She was the third ship to be launched in her class. > The ship was reported to have been at the Wessex Power Units Yard during the early 1960s. ---
**Author:** ![Rich\_G7subs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/85e7bf/32.png) [@Rich\_G7subs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rich_G7subs)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2012, 11:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-subs-and-their-nuclear-missiles/631499/57 "2012-08-20T11:27:07Z")
> [@Pushkin](#): > > A little box for the guard on duty on deck too, cute 😛 Yup…it figures :rolleyes: . Attack boats didn’t have those! Fast attack tough, brother! ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2012, 11:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-subs-and-their-nuclear-missiles/631499/58 "2012-08-20T11:42:58Z")
> [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](#): > > All bets are off if you have the misfortune to find yourself serving on HMS _Candytuft_ or _Gay Bruiser_, though. > > [Flower-class corvette - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flower_class_corvette) > [HMS Gay Bruiser - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Gay_Bruiser_(P1044)) Au Contraire, however one spells ot. [HMS Glowworm](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Glowworm_%28H92%29) took on the heavy cruiser Admiral Hipper. Tough guys. ---
**Author:** ![yoyodyne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/a9a28c/32.png) [@yoyodyne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yoyodyne)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2012, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-subs-and-their-nuclear-missiles/631499/59 "2012-08-20T13:57:43Z")
> [@carnivorousplant](#): > > [HMS Glowworm](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Glowworm_%28H92%29) took on the heavy cruiser Admiral Hipper. So…it was a bottom? ---
**Author:** ![muldoonthief](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muldoonthief/32/3188_2.png) [@muldoonthief](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/muldoonthief)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2012, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-subs-and-their-nuclear-missiles/631499/60 "2012-08-20T14:26:49Z")
> [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](#): > > All bets are off if you have the misfortune to find yourself serving on HMS _Candytuft_ or _Gay Bruiser_, though. > > [Flower-class corvette - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flower_class_corvette) > [HMS Gay Bruiser - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Gay_Bruiser_(P1044)) Don’t forget the [HMS Cockchafer](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Cockchafer). Four of them! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-subs-and-their-nuclear-missiles/631499.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-subs-and-their-nuclear-missiles/631499.md?page=4)